(August 25, 2018 at 11:01 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: 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 are more damning articles, like this one, or this one or 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.

(August 25, 2018 at 4:26 am)PRJA93 Wrote: Peterson has some good ideas when it comes to personal responsibility. He also has some interesting ideas about psychology... Beyond that he tends to veer off into the field of horseshit. He's insanely disingenuous any time he discusses religion or god, which is annoying.

I do appreciate the sort of "pull yourself up by the bootstraps and fix your life" type of stuff because many, many more people could benefit from some serious self-reflection than currently realize it.

Peterson has some good ideas but the religious shit is just too much for me. I think he wrote a decent self-help book. He might even be an interesting professor to have. That's about it.

(August 25, 2018 at 11:27 pm)bennyboy Wrote: The cheque is in the mail!

(August 25, 2018 at 5:30 pm)bennyboy Wrote: 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.

Quote:In this paper, I examine the ideology of white supremacists and separatists, which portrays Whites as "victims." I first review several convergences in the recent literature on white supremacist discourse. I argue that the "victim ideology" has been discussed frequently, but generally only in passing, and in the service of other arguments. Following the approach to victimology suggested by Holstein and Miller (1990) I present an empirical constructionist analysis of these "victim claims," breaking them down into five themes — (1) discrimination, (2) rights abrogations, (3) stigmatization and the denial of pride, (4) loss of self-esteem, and (5) racial elimination. I conclude with some comments on the theoretical and social role of this ideology, and its use as a recruiting tool for the contemporary white supremacist and separatist movement.

(August 26, 2018 at 7:49 am)Khemikal Wrote: Who knows, but hopefully he can read through some of that and realize how often he falls into that narrowly prescribed narrative...and maybe begin to wonder why.  the abstract from the jstor above is particularly breif and descriptive.

Quote:In this paper, I examine the ideology of white supremacists and separatists, which portrays Whites as "victims." I first review several convergences in the recent literature on white supremacist discourse. I argue that the "victim ideology" has been discussed frequently, but generally only in passing, and in the service of other arguments. Following the approach to victimology suggested by Holstein and Miller (1990) I present an empirical constructionist analysis of these "victim claims," breaking them down into five themes — (1) discrimination, (2) rights abrogations, (3) stigmatization and the denial of pride, (4) loss of self-esteem, and (5) racial elimination. I conclude with some comments on the theoretical and social role of this ideology, and its use as a recruiting tool for the contemporary white supremacist and separatist movement.

(August 26, 2018 at 7:47 am)Tizheruk Wrote: To bad Ben in talking about the "PC Lefts tactics " uses the right tactic of proclaiming what "the PC Lefts tactics" are . What's next he's going to start calling himself a "Classical Liberal"

Quote:It's pretty well known what PC means, and it is explicitly linked-- explicitly and by definition, mind you-- to the differential treatment of members of demographic groups based on that membership.  It frames social issues in terms of victimization or oppression by those groups.

This is not really up for debate, so far as I know:

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

(August 26, 2018 at 12:00 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(August 26, 2018 at 7:49 am)Khemikal Wrote: Who knows, but hopefully he can read through some of that and realize how often he falls into that narrowly prescribed narrative...and maybe begin to wonder why.  the abstract from the jstor above is particularly breif and descriptive.

Have I described whites, collectively, as victims, anywhere in this thread?  I must have, because certainly you wouldn't straw man something so fundamental, and so oft-repeated by you, if I'd said nothing of the sort.  Right?

The only thing I believe I've said about that is that you keep using racist comments toward me, and that I think this is typical of the kind of group demographics by which the PC Left insist we view the world.

(August 26, 2018 at 1:39 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(August 26, 2018 at 12:00 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Have I described whites, collectively, as victims, anywhere in this thread?  I must have, because certainly you wouldn't straw man something so fundamental, and so oft-repeated by you, if I'd said nothing of the sort.  Right?

The only thing I believe I've said about that is that you keep using racist comments toward me, and that I think this is typical of the kind of group demographics by which the PC Left insist we view the world.

...........................sigh.