(August 25, 2018 at 4:52 am)robvalue Wrote:

Indeed the Cult of Peterson's pseudo religious babble. Nice video 

Thank you

(August 25, 2018 at 5:47 am)robvalue Wrote: Thank you

Your welcome 

---

Thing i personally hate about him philosophy is his condescension of legitimately oppressed groups  while ignoring context .His complete misunderstanding of Marx .His complete misunderstanding post modernism .His Total misunderstanding of fascism.His misunderstanding of the Frankfurt school . His misunderstandings of Nietzsche and as i pointed out earlier he even manages to mess up Jung by skipping Archetypes that don't fit his ideology.

(August 25, 2018 at 3:06 am)Khemikal Wrote: Pretty sure we've already been down every single road on these questions.  

I don't think that you're particularly adept at picking out the difference between nutballs, rightwing propaganda, and social justice issues.

You look to the first to reenforce the second as an argument against the third.  Your idea of extremism in social justice is a slow moving trainwreck of white anxiety, worried that the once oppressed will attempt to become oppressors, worried that people will think that you're a racist for being white, worried that your business will suffer, somehow. 

This is certainly what rightwing trash would have people believe..because it helps them to delay the moment when they can no longer set people against each other as a distraction from their incessant grift.

My idea of extremism is nothing of the sort. I will tell you exactly what I think it is, then you will inevitably pretend I never said it, make some snide remarks about my racial background, and proceed with sniffing your own farts.

My idea of PC extremism is that it attempts to demonize any open discussion about certain issues with ad hominems and hysterical memes. At this point in the thread, I'm willing to take the way you personally express yourself, and the many logical fallacies by which you try to manipulate the discussion, and even the narrative around the nature of discussions, as an expression of that particularly distasteful brand of extremism.

I've laid out my positions on various subjects, many of which you will if there's any honesty in you at all identify as left-of-center. That I'm not willing to frame those subjects in the type of rhetoric you prefer, you take as either a deliberate association with the alt-right, or as an unknowing and weak-minded submission to brain-washing. You cannot understand that a person can hold left-of-center politics, and not want to frame it in a collection of demographic stereotypes and of fart-sniffing memes.

You take PC Leftism not as a collection of principles by which to live, and by which you intend to live a good life. You've adopted it as a kind of religion-- and your hysteria when confronted with actual facts and original ideas are the kind of response that one would expect of a religious ideologue accusing another of heresy, rather than of an intellectual attempting to persuade, through logic and the revelation of facts and evidence.

And that, in a nutshell, is my view of PC Leftism-- it is not a political or philosophical position at all, but rather a dogmatic collection of memes which must be accepted wholesale and with rabid expression of complete adherence: "Either you are with us in all regards, 100%, or you are an alt-right nutjob."

We've been down this road as well..and it's another 1-2-3 thing.

Nutballs, right wing propaganda, pc left. I could link pc again and ask you the same questions about what, taken to extremes, would bother you and expect that nothing would...and that you would think each was a great idea.

I actually don't think that your having dipped your toes into the pool of alt right rhetoric is intentional, at all. I can only say this so many times. That's pretty much the entire point of going over -insert rightwing propagandist here- positions, explaining where they originate, explaining what they are used for, explaining why they are wrong, and suggesting reasons that a person may find them compelling despite their having been utterly misinformed. I've run out of non-asshole reasons for how you ended up carrying that baggage. You tell me that all of my non-asshole reasons are wrong. I still think they're a better explanation than you being a recalcitrant bigot, lol.

As I've already explained (and again can only explain so many times) there's no compulsion that you agree with every item.. reasonable people can disagree, but maybe you should disagree directly with pc or sj issues rather than disagreeing with imaginary racist cryptomarxist zealots as though they -were- pc or sj issues? This has always been the bait and switch, and it's not really surprising. As we've discussed..this is a tune that the right has been singing since 1970. If you happened to hum a few bars of the chorus here and there, it's really not that much different than getting a bad pop song stuck in your head.

What you haven't done, Khemikal, is open yourself up to flipping that script, and really examining your own 1-2-3.

What you do, and the far left in general does, is very similar to what the right does, just with different keywords that trigger you. You sniff out someone who doesn't automatically agree with some point you hold dear, than put them in that -rightwing propagandist- category, at which point you consider them sufficiently demonized that they can be disregarded, along with the opinions or views of anyone whose language or views you think have a non-zero overlap.

Engaging with stereotypes in this way, rather than engaging with each individual idea, is dangerous. There's no guilt by association of ideas. You can see that I'm against the methodology of the extreme left, but that I share many of the political and ideological ideals of the left wing. And this presents great difficulty to you, I think-- because if you are willing to discard me, and my arguments, wholesale, you might remove some criticism of the PC Left, but will also alienate a reasonably intelligent support of the ideals of the left.

That you do this is instantly obvious. When I was engaged in producing examples or explanations for my ideas, you were equally busy-- finding memes bywhich to disregard me. "Awwwww. . . life is so hard for a white man" is language which clearly serves this purpose. "Oh. . . you're just a puppet of the right, even though I have enough respect for you to believe that you are unaware of this fact" really is right along that same line.

So when you say that my narrative, that the PC Left deliberately use stereotyping to control speech, and to guide the narrative of political or philosophical discussions, and then you say stuff like that, then what's left to say? You're doing it. You're doing the thing everyone is talking about. You're doing it, and you shouldn't do it, because (1) it's very weak argumentation, and (2) by being so intolerant of free discussion, you are, in fact, alienating someone whose views would have a very high overlap with yours.

--edit--

accidentally replied to myself instead of editing. But doesn't matter, it was a change in grammar, not in content

By the way, I went on Cracked, and found this new article about Jordan Peterson and how he's dangerous in ways that guys like Richard Spencer and Milo Yiannopolous really aren't, and it's in his sincerity and being so exceptionally persuasive that even the likes of Bennyboy can be taken in and it has the added bonus of showing the importance of being able to calmly explain the problems with the arguments presented.

Some goofball makes a joke, and this is the hysteria that ensues.  I'm guessing she's PC left-- would you disagree?

---

(August 25, 2018 at 10:29 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: By the way, I went on Cracked, and found this new article about Jordan Peterson and how he's dangerous in ways that guys like Richard Spencer and Milo Yiannopolous really aren't, and it's in his sincerity and being so exceptionally persuasive that even the likes of Bennyboy can be taken in and it has the added bonus of showing the importance of being able to calmly explain the problems with the arguments presented.

Ah, yes, quality reporting from the news organization that brings you other hard-hitting stories, like:


5 Reasons We Should Be Worried About Star Wars Episode IX


Why Did Pirates Really Wear Eyepatches?

The Incredible, Stupid, Gruesome Story Of The First Jet Pack

Seems legit. I'll bet a million dollars that when you say, "I went on Cracked," you really meant "I was googling articles about the evil Jordan Peterson, and I ended up at Cracked because it's the most damning source I could find in 10 seconds."

Like it or not, Benny, in between articles like this, they do have some legitimately philosophical articles like:

• The impossibility of the human mind to empathise with more than 150 people at any given moment
  
• Why people who fight monsters tend to become monsters themselves
  
• The realities of living with chronic pain and why the opioid epidemic is a thing.
  
• Exactly why the Millennial generation was so screwed over.
  
• The Logical fallacies that tend to cloud our thinking the most
  

And there's a bunch of potentially click-baity lists which are actually a lot more insightful than they might seem at first glance, including this one which draws on the words of the girl Roman Polanski raped, or what it's like to be an innocent man on Death Row, or what it is to be raised into a racist militia on the brink of apartheid.

And, of course, remember, I've been in this thread since about 23 minutes from the beginning. There are far more easily findable articles about Peterson, and just Googling his name can find several, even more damning articles, like this one, or this one or this one or or here. I found all of these without leaving the first page of Google's search results. I'll be taking that million, Bennyboy.