Yeah that one was great. Haha. I guess the damage is done and it can't get any worse. Might as well stick with fascism because other than the fascism part it is really compatible with my political philosophy.
Yeah that one was great. Haha. I guess the damage is done and it can't get any worse. Might as well stick with fascism because other than the fascism part it is really compatible with my political philosophy.07:26 - Uh, he'd vote for a candidate that he admits has done irreversible damage to the country based on the notion that it can't get any worse?
Actually, I interpreted it as the fascism part being in agreement with Shapiro's political philosophy. It sounded like the only aspect of Trump he didn't approve of is the way Trump presents himself and the way that reflected on America. With America already being the laughing stock of the developed world, Shapiro's okay with everything else.Yeah that one was great. Haha. I guess the damage is done and it can't get any worse. Might as well stick with fascism because other than the fascism part it is really compatible with my political philosophy.
Yeah but don't call the pro-lifer a fascist because he might get a little upset.Actually, I interpreted it as the fascism part being in agreement with Shapiro's political philosophy. It sounded like the only aspect of Trump he didn't approve of is the way Trump presents himself and the way that reflected on America. With America already being the laughing stock of the developed world, Shapiro's okay with everything else.
His position makes perfect sense if the assumptions he makes about the situation were accurate and depending on what he means by his political philosophy.Yeah that one was great. Haha. I guess the damage is done and it can't get any worse. Might as well stick with fascism because other than the fascism part it is really compatible with my political philosophy.
One thing I disagree with him on is that renewable energy is not impossible due to the first law of thermodynamics. This is because I’m not a fucking moron like Ben Shapiro.
One thing I disagree with him on is that renewable energy is not impossible due to the first law of thermodynamics. This is because I’m not a fucking moron like Ben Shapiro.
I am about 22 minutes in and finding it difficult to watch. This is probably because they are just so fucking enlightened and I am a tribal chimpanzee.For anybody sufficiently interested in seeing what I would call an interesting exploration of important ideas and has, also, the time and patience to devote to it, you might enjoy this: There is a delay at the beginning and a couple of ads, you can skip through. It's Shapiro interviewing Peterson.
LOL why would you subject yourself to a torture like that? I only made it to 1 minute and all I heard during that minute was non-stop circlejerk about liberal leftist agenda.I am about 22 minutes in and finding it difficult to watch. This is probably because they are just so fucking enlightened and I am a tribal chimpanzee.
I wonder if the contrast with Neil (who tends to be as aggressive in interviews with fellow conservatives as leftists, because, that's his job) is about US vs UK conservatives or if it's a matter of generation? Or if I'm just trying to generalise too much from it?
It actually got better once I got through that shit, although it was kind of hard for me to follow as it got really deep into philosophy. I am pretty sure I understood enough of it to at least get the gist of what Peterson was discussing.LOL why would you subject yourself to a torture like that? I only made it to 1 minute and all I heard during that minute was non-stop circlejerk about liberal leftist agenda.
Well it’s Peterson doing most of the talking so you are looking at a professor and clinician, a rather intelligent and articulate person expressing a lifetime of investigation in a field few are familiar with.I am about 22 minutes in and finding it difficult to watch. This is probably because they are just so fucking enlightened and I am a tribal chimpanzee.
Yes, I picked up on that theme as well. It is why they are so enlightened and why all radical leftists are tribal marxists. I guess we radical leftists want everyone to be drones. He also left me with the impression that nobody should try to change the system because the system is not the problem, it is the individual. Fuck that. I am also guessing, and correct me if I am wrong, that he has no problem with Republicans/conservatives changing the system, only "radical leftists."Well it’s Peterson doing most of the talking so you are looking at a professor and clinician, a rather intelligent and articulate person expressing a lifetime of investigation in a field few are familiar with.
A basic theme that runs through the discussion is the notion out of ‘the Enlightenment that the individual is sacred. That’s what makes being a tribal chimpanzee so cool, and why I love you as best as this particular tribal chimpanzee can.
That tweet is a good example of Dunning-Kruger. Yet again someone combines smart-arsery with getting things completely wrong. I mean it's an attempt to be pointlessly pedantic and nit-picky about the English language, and to claim some sort of superior science knowlege, that doesn't get either the pedantry or the science right.
(Little bit like when some writer sneered at the term 'severe acute respiratory syndrome', bemoaning the medical scientists' lack of literacy, on the grounds that the first two words mean the same thing, thus revealing that they didn't know what the word 'acute' means.)
I'd never heard of Shapiro before this row. I guess it's a question of which side of the Atlantic you are on which of the two participants in that interview you had 'never heard of' - Andrew Neil is very well known in the UK, and has been annoying me for decades. I have no idea what Shapiro's qualifications or track-record is, but he sounds like an idiot on the evidence of this thread.
I wonder if the contrast with Neil (who tends to be as aggressive in interviews with fellow conservatives as leftists, because, that's his job) is about US vs UK conservatives or if it's a matter of generation? Or if I'm just trying to generalise too much from it?
I think that British political interviews are just a lot more robust than American ones. There are less major channels over here so politicians cant really nope out of BBC interviews because they will be too tough, so theres no up side to the TV interviewers playing gently with the interviewee.
I didn't think that Andrew Neil was that hard on him tbh, it would have been fun to see Shapiro getting Paxmanned!
I am not qualified to speak for him, so I will speak for my reading of him: Remember that if you have issues with what I say, those issues may not be with him but with me. OK?Yes, I picked up on that theme as well. It is why they are so enlightened and why all radical leftists are tribal marxists. I guess we radical leftists want everyone to be drones. He also left me with the impression that nobody should try to change the system because the system is not the problem, it is the individual. Fuck that. I am also guessing, and correct me if I am wrong, that he has no problem with Republicans/conservatives changing the system, only "radical leftists."
I am confused by the bolded part of this sentence: Oppressive hierarchy doesn’t want to give up power and the left rejects hierarchy of competence is not only good but inevitable.I am not qualified to speak for him, so I will speak for my reading of him: Remember that if you have issues with what I say, those issues may not be with him but with me. OK?
So, where to begin.....
My opinion:
Peterson was minding his business studying human conscious as a Canadian professor when the Canadian government passed a law that everybody had to by law use the gender pronoun anybody else demanded. This was the first time any liberal democracy ever passed a law demanding politically correct speech. The Suprene Court in the US would rule such a law unconstitutional. Peterson said no, he would not obey such a law the result of which, I gather, catapulted him into fame.
His objection was not a rejection of gender or a bias against gender identification, but against authoritarian mandated pronoun usage by the government. Others, I think, made the assumptions that he is anti liberal and anti whatever the gender term is. He provoked, thereby, a completely erroneous assumption that brought contempt from the authoritarian left and support from the authoritarian right. I see him in opposition to both, but the threat to his profession and professorship comes from those who try to slime him on the left.
To understand his views on the dangers of authoritarianism on the left requires a complex philosophical understanding of a number of themes including the nature of hierarchy based on competence vs oppression and how those are seen in relation to victim mentality and a host of other things, ideas that the trigger happy world we live in on the left and the right make deflection of his thinking almost automatic. You can see much of that in this thread. Everybody has him figured out based on almost nothing. Oppressive hierarchy doesn’t want to give up power and the left rejects hierarchy of competence is not only good but inevitable. The notion, for example, that human consciousness is driving its evolution is pretty amazing.
Any way enough for now.......
One thing I disagree with him on is that renewable energy is not impossible due to the first law of thermodynamics. This is because I’m not a fucking moron like Ben Shapiro.
the left rejects hierarchy of competence (which) is not only good (that kind of hierarchy) but inevitable (they form naturally).I am confused by the bolded part of this sentence: Oppressive hierarchy doesn’t want to give up power and the left rejects hierarchy of competence is not only good but inevitable.
My brain cannot parse what you are trying to say here...
The left rejects hierarchy of competence? I don't think you are trying to say that. At least I hope you are not.
I am not qualified to speak for him, so I will speak for my reading of him: Remember that if you have issues with what I say, those issues may not be with him but with me. OK?
So, where to begin.....
My opinion:
Peterson was minding his business studying human conscious as a Canadian professor when the Canadian government passed a law that everybody had to by law use the gender pronoun anybody else demanded. This was the first time any liberal democracy ever passed a law demanding politically correct speech. The Suprene Court in the US would rule such a law unconstitutional. Peterson said no, he would not obey such a law the result of which, I gather, catapulted him into fame.
His objection was not a rejection of gender or a bias against gender identification, but against authoritarian mandated pronoun usage by the government. Others, I think, made the assumptions that he is anti liberal and anti whatever the gender term is. He provoked, thereby, a completely erroneous assumption that brought contempt from the authoritarian left and support from the authoritarian right. I see him in opposition to both, but the threat to his profession and professorship comes from those who try to slime him on the left.
To understand his views on the dangers of authoritarianism on the left requires a complex philosophical understanding of a number of themes including the nature of hierarchy based on competence vs oppression and how those are seen in relation to victim mentality and a host of other things, ideas that the trigger happy world we live in on the left and the right make deflection of his thinking almost automatic. You can see much of that in this thread. Everybody has him figured out based on almost nothing. Oppressive hierarchy doesn’t want to give up power and the left rejects hierarchy of competence is not only good but inevitable. The notion, for example, that human consciousness is driving its evolution is pretty amazing.
Any way enough for now.......
the left rejects hierarchy of competence (which) is not only good (that kind of hierarchy) but inevitable (they form naturally).
Peterson postulates that hierarchies are evolutionarily inevitable and go back for millions of years built into our biology and hormonal system. As an example of one, the evidence that the best predictor of hierarchical status is in humans is intelligence. Hierarchy based on competence means that we have competent people running things. But hierarchy has a problem, it tends to lead to authoritarian rigidity and preservation of the status quo, which is the job of liberals are needed to fight against. But where liberals reject the notion that heirarchies are not only inevitable but not negative is the sense that the best of the best run things and that's good for everybody, and fight heirarchy based on the fact that heirarchy is all and only about the maintainence of power and dominance, that turns everything into a in out class struggle where group identity is the determinant of everything, that victims of power oppression must revolt. This is left wing authoritarian madness, where the sacredness of the notion that the self as of primary importance gives way to the notion that only the group identity matters. That is just another kind of oppression and psychotically dangerous. That's not liberalism, it's madness. The sanctity of the individual is a liberal ideal. and conpetence should be valued.
This is also why Peterson is not a fascist. He believes that incompetence and wallowing in it leads to the kinds of things like school shootings. This is why he pushes young men lost to a sense of self-worthlessness to get up and make their beds, do things demonstrate you aren't worthless. If you couple that up with the descent into hell, learning to feel what you feel, you dig the tunnel that unifies opposites from both ends.
You shouldn't have bothered with all that typing given that what you state in the 1st paragraph undercuts any argument that you might wish to make because it is completely wrong. C-16 does not do what you and Peterson claim it does.
http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/
https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained
Pay particular attention to the idea that there is a difference between legislation about what you can't say and what you are required to say. So anything I say, fucker, you just say you agree. Got it. punk!
© YouTube
Two weeks ago I posted three YouTube videos about legislative threats to Canadian freedom of speech. I singled out Canada’s Federal Bill C-16, which adds legal protection for “gender identity” and “gender expression” to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal code.
I noted that the policy statements surrounding similar legislation — most particularly those on the Ontario Human Rights Commission website — were dangerously vague and ill-formulated. I also indicated my refusal to apply what are now known as “preferred” pronouns to people who do not fit easily into traditional gender categories (although I am willing to call someone “he” or “she” in accordance with their manner of self-presentation).
These videos attracted a disproportionate amount of attention — online, in the Canadian national media, and beyond. A demonstration at the University of Toronto protested my statements. Another was held in support of free speech. The latter was met by counter-demonstrators who drowned out the speakers with white noise and assaulted a young female journalist — an act now viewed by half a million people on YouTube overall:
If you are wondering, reasonably, why any of this might be relevant to Americans, you might note that legislation very similar to Bill C-16 has already been passed in New York City.
Authorities there now fine citizens up to $250,000 for the novel crime of “mis-gendering” — referring to people by any words other than their pronouns of choice (including newly constructed words such as zie/hir, ey/em/eir and co).
“They” is also a popular choice, transforming the plural into a new singular, with its advocates arguing (misleadingly, in my opinion) that such use reaches back several hundred years. I have been taken to task for my refusal to abide by the wishes of those demanding such changes to my speech. What are my reasons?
First, most simply, are the practical problems. The Big Apple now legally protects a non-exhaustive list of 31 gender identities.
Facebook offers a choice of 58. Is that not the instant reductio ad absurdum of the gender extremists’ claims? Are the denizens of New York now legally required to employ a new pronoun for each of these many identities? How are they supposed to keep track of who’s who? And who is going to distinguish between mistakes and criminal action or intent?
It also turns out that pronouns are not so easy to change — particularly by fiat — because they are part of a “closed linguistic category” resistant to alteration.
Second, more complexly, are the political issues. “Gender-neutral” pronouns are part of the “PC Game.” Here’s how you play:
First, you identify a domain of human endeavor. It could be the wealth of people within a society. It could be the psychological well-being of individuals within a given organization. It could be the prowess of school children at a particular sport.
Second, you note the inevitable continuum of success. Some people are richer or happier than others. Some children are better at playing volleyball.
Third, you define those doing comparatively better as oppressors of those doing comparatively worse.
Fourth, and finally, you declare solidarity with the latter, and enmity for the former (now all-too-convenient targets for your resentment and hatred).
You have now established your moral superiority, cost-free, and can trumpet it at will.
Words such as zie and hir, are also, in my opinion, moves in the PC game. It’s not a game I wish to play. We shouldn’t reduce complex, uncertain issues to a one-size-fits-all formula. Instead, we should think things through carefully, using words of our own choice. It’s a free speech issue, in its essence.
People often defend freedom of speech on the grounds that citizens must retain the right to criticize their leaders. That’s true, but it’s not the fundamental truth.
Freedom of speech protects our societies from shipwreck on the Scylla of tyranny and the Charybdis of nihilism and despair. Freedom of speech allows us to identify the problems that beset us. Freedom of speech allows us to formulate solutions to those problems, and to reach consensus on the solutions.
There is nothing in the absence of freedom of speech but tyranny and slavery.
MORE STORIES FROM THE HILL
Trump's idea to 'open up' libel laws works just fine for us in Britain
Learn to take a joke — Defending 'offensive' Halloween costumes
To identify problems, solve them, and reach consensus, we have to do it foolishly. We have to mis-speak, and over-react, and engage badly in intense verbal conflict. We have to be tested and corrected by others. All of that requires legal protection.
People become upset by differences of opinion, and want them suppressed. And it’s no wonder. But the alternative is worse.
Without free speech, we cannot explore our ever-transforming territories, orient ourselves, and get to the point. Without freedom of speech, we will not talk — and we will not think. And then we will have real conflict, with all of its horrors, instead of its abstracted equivalent.
Some trans activists and I start a conversation: https://t.co/yPSEH5FzHF— Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) October 14, 2016Bill C-16, and its legislative sisters, are particularly insidious constructions.
Free speech is so fundamentally important that restricting it in any manner carries serious risk. Nonetheless, we shouldn’t be allowed to yell “fire” in a crowded theatre. Sensible people can also debate the control of hatred (although hate speech laws present a significant danger themselves).
There is, however, a crucial difference between laws that stop people from saying arguably dangerous words and laws that mandate the use of politically-approved words and phrases. We have never had laws of the latter sort before, not in our countries. This is no time to start.
So, a note from a Canadian friend. The citizens of your great country, and ours — and of our allies across the Western world — are at risk.
Careless, ideologically-addled legislators are forcing us to use words we did not freely choose. We have to draw a line in the sand. That’s why people are watching. It’s a vitally important issue. We cannot afford to get it wrong.