Peterson's 12 Rules For Life, have you heard of this?

[bennyboy]

So, are you going to actually read the article and not make ad homs about it mentioning Sam Harris (an intelligent man who goes from making good points to the absolutely asinine on a fucking dime) in the first paragraph?

Really, dude?  You thinking I'm intellectually lazy at this point in the thread?  I mean. . . you can dislike my position, or (hopefully) have more sensible ideas about how to bring black people into a more equitable position in American society, but if you think I've not been doing my homework, you are pretty unobservant.

First of all, not only did I read the article (it took about 20 seconds), I also tracked some of the links FROM that article, and did my own googling on Harris' issue with this. Second, Harris isn't mentioned as an aside. It is a particular issue in Harris' life (and career, I'd say) which involved one of the most conspicuously left-leaning figures in the public arena (I mean, dude is a spiritual Buddhist and a humanist) being maligned by the PC left, leading him to shy away from social media, and which led the quoted author to write that article. Basically, Harris is a perfect example of how active demonization from the PC Left is used to shut down honest intellectual discussion. You literally couldn't provide an issue which better supports my view of the PC Left than this one.

I'm pretty sure that there's already been a thread about this, and that his interview with Joe Rogan was linked at that time, but here's a clip of him talking about the whole manufactured drama about it:





But yeah, I could very easily have said-- if you're citing Sam Harris as a racist, then you've just alienated a bunch of people on these forums, and maybe 50% of the secular liberal left.  (the 50% is a guesstimate, but I think it's likely to be a pretty big chunk). You might also want to consider that Harris and Peterson have been engaged in active debate-- remember how I keep saying that Harris is "running circles around" Peterson?

So if you stand against both Peterson AND Harris, then where does that leave Team Truth™? A house divided cannot stand, eh?

---

Since we're having fun with articles, here's one about the dangers of atheism:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3k7jx...-alt-right

So, either atheists are horrible, horrible bigots-- a bunch of nasty white males.  OR, and this is my position, atheists are tired of dogmatic bullshit, and are unlikely to consider PC Left dogmatic bullshit a worthy substitute for religious dogmatic bullshit.



Khem, Rye, let's check that privilege.  Hands up, black women?  Anyone, anyone?  Do we even have one black person in these forums, other than Huggy74? You guys gonna talk about white privilege, and you spend your days on a forum that consists almost exclusively of white people. Why oh why are atheists so unwilling to allow black people to join these forums!?!?!? Why oh why have black people been prevented from participating in this, a thread that's almost entirely about issues of race?

Don't say that's not what's happening-- because the lack of black people clearly means that white people are actively preventing them from participating equally. . . right?

[Rev. Rye]

What I said was that Sam Harris tends to switch from being rational to bigoted (admittedly mostly against Islam, often for legitimate purposes, but often putting his foot in his mouth.) I am not dismissing him out of hand; I'm acknowledging that he's deeply flawed.

So, either atheists are horrible, horrible bigots-- a bunch of nasty white males.  OR, and this is my position, atheists are tired of dogmatic bullshit, and are unlikely to consider PC Left dogmatic bullshit a worthy substitute for religious dogmatic bullshit.

Or it could just be an example of the point Eric Hoffer made (and you approved of with your kudos): "Though they seem at opposite poles, fanatics of all kinds are actually crowded together at one end. It is the fanatic and the moderate who are poles apart and never meet. The fanatics of various hues eye each other with suspicion and are ready to fly at each other’s throats. But they are neighbors and almost of one family. They hate each other with the hatred of brothers. They are as far apart and close together as Saul and Paul. And it is easier for a fanatic Communist to be converted to fascism, chauvinism or Catholicism than to become a sober liberal. " The True Believer, Section 62.

Because if they were really tired of dogmatic bullshit, would anyone with a functioning brain consider the sort of racialist bullshit that we discarded about half a century ago combined with turning into those absurd creatures from the id that the Alt-Right has courted (from the 4channer to the fucking President) a viable alternative?

[bennyboy]

Because if they were really tired of dogmatic bullshit, would anyone with a functioning brain consider the sort of racialist bullshit that we discarded about half a century ago combined with turning into those absurd creatures from the id that the Alt-Right has courted a viable alternative?

It's hard to answer this, because you frame everything in such a biased way. But the answer is yes, people with a functioning brain consider facts about IQ differences and their correlation to success in American society. People with a functioning brain, if they are clever, will consider ALL facts available to them in informing their opinions. If the facts are unpleasant, but the people themselves are not assholes, they will attempt to use those facts with discretion and consideration, in working toward the goals of a liberal society-- specifically, the goal of establishing equal opportunity for all members of the society.


Anyway, are you now saying that atheists are NOT tired of dogmatic bullshit? Should I make that the title of a new thread, and see what kind of response it gets? Or better yet, why don't YOU start that thread?

[Rev. Rye]

It's hard to answer this, because you frame everything in such a biased way. But the answer is yes, people with a functioning brain consider facts about IQ differences and their correlation to success in American society. People with a functioning brain, if they are clever, will consider ALL facts available to them in informing their opinions. If the facts are unpleasant, but the people themselves are not assholes, they will attempt to use those facts with discretion and consideration, in working toward the goals of a liberal society-- specifically, the goal of establishing equal opportunity for all members of the society.


Anyway, are you now saying that atheists are NOT tired of dogmatic bullshit? Should I make that the title of a new thread, and see what kind of response it gets? Or better yet, why don't YOU start that thread?

I'm saying that those atheists the article are talking about are simply exchanging one type of dogmatic bullshit for another.

Also, it's one thing to consider IQ differences and their correlation with success in American Society and another thing entirely to make blanket statements about race and IQ, especially when one fails to discuss the nuance of what IQ actually is and its relationship with intelligence. Or even the limitations of IQ (protip, around the same time, Stanley Kubrick and Joachim von Ribbentrop had their IQ tested. Stanley Kubrick, infamous for becoming something of a whiz in any subject he set his mind to, was actually "below average" intelligence. Von Ribbentropp, infamous for being a diplomat with no concept of diplomacy and a Foreign Minister who didn't even know what his foreign policy even was, scored 129, about two standard deviations above the norm.)

[bennyboy]

Also, it's one thing to consider IQ differences and their correlation with success in American Society and another thing entirely to make blanket statements about race and IQ, especially when one fails to discuss the nuance of what IQ actually is and its relationship with intelligence.

No doubt. There are arguments about cultural bias, and about whether there even IS such a thing as the so-called "g" value. There are also the same issues with SAT tests.

But the context of this discussion is about the correlation between IQ (which can be measured) and income (which can be measured), and not between intelligence (which can't really be measured) or human value (which can't really be measured).

Also refer to post #612 where I introduced the issue:

Please note that all of this is quite explicitly racist. But when you look at a lot of correlations, you see that being black correlates with IQ, with crime, with poverty, with certain diseases, and so on-- it's quite the cluster of correlations. And it's easy to see that any one of these could have a causal effect on the others or that they could feed off of each other in nasty ways-- and knowing which causes which (or whether it's a vicious circle) matters when it comes to actually deciding how to solve the problem-- with more than lip service, but with steps intended actually to get to the root of the problem.

And then in post #617:

Anyway, back to the alt-right script. Do you agree that there's an IQ difference, and that IQ correlates with income, or do you deny this to be the case?

There are several possibilities:
1) The test is bullshit (either it's culturally biased, or it doesn't actually measure intelligence that matters)
2) The results are either a lie, or are reported in a way so biased that it constitutes fraud.
3) Black people, on average, are in fact not as intelligent as white people, on average, and this hurts their chance to generate income.

So you see, I acknowledged the kind of objections you're making, and put them forward myself, right from the start. Those are the kinds of things you need to consider before you decide what policies to make. Who is or isn't a witch might matter to witch-hunters, but a little more research might point to the real cause of the plague.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm glad to see you walk it all the way back to a time before you decided it was No3, lol.

In any case, was there anything that you found helpful in that slate article?

---

---

Since we're having fun with articles, here's one about the dangers of atheism:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3k7jx...-alt-right

Recall my having mentioned that the latest round of white supremacist normalization made it's rounds on popular skeptic channels?

Khem, Rye, let's check that privilege.  Hands up, black women?  Anyone, anyone?  Do we even have one black person in these forums, other than Huggy74?  You guys gonna talk about white privilege, and you spend your days on a forum that consists almost exclusively of white people.  Why oh why are atheists so unwilling to allow black people to join these forums!?!?!?  Why oh why have black people been prevented from participating in this, a thread that's almost entirely about issues of race?

Don't say that's not what's happening-- because the lack of black people clearly means that white people are actively preventing them from participating equally. . . right?

Were you having a stroke, here.....or..............?   

[bennyboy]

I'm glad to see you walk it all the way back to a time before you decided it was No3, lol.

In any case, was there anything that you found helpful in that slate article?

Yeah, it shows that our conversation pretty much mirrors those going on at higher academic levels. I think this PC vs. Free speech issue is one of the defining issues in the US right now.

But be warned-- the more you try to use hysteria and rhetoric to win, and ignore facts, the more people are going to think that free speech has to come out on top.

Don't say that's not what's happening-- because the lack of black people clearly means that white people are actively preventing them from participating equally. . . right?

Were you having a stroke, here.....or?   

Shhhh. . . I'm trying to put myself in your shoes, and see if that helps me understand your position.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm glad to see you walk it all the way back to a time before you decided it was No3, lol.

In any case, was there anything that you found helpful in that slate article?

Yeah, it shows that our conversation pretty much mirrors those going on at higher academic levels.  I think this PC vs. Free speech issue is one of the defining issues in the US right now.

But be warned-- the more you try to use hysteria and rhetoric to win, and ignore facts, the more people are going to think that free speech has to come out on top.

Its defining for the alt right, sure.   I was honestly hoping for something a little less lunacy confirming out of that one.  In light of the fact that the author directly addressed this notion, does it really make sense to think that the article confirms some nutball conspiracy against free speech? Or, as unkind as it will inevitably seem to you, might it make more sense to assume that you will interpret any information you come acrossed in this way?

Beyond that, I think that you might be swallowing the koolaid here, as well..because this conversation isn't actually occurring at high levels of academia. At that level, the issue has been settled definitively and not in favor of scientific racism. It's occurring at the pulp level of popular consumption where it's maintenance is politically useful and it's inaccuracy completely irrelevant.

Were you having a stroke, here.....or?   

Shhhh. . . I'm trying to put myself in your shoes, and see if that helps me understand your position.

So, yes?

Now here's a question for you. Who told you that was anything I would think or say, or that it bore even a passing resemblance to any position of mine? I'll give you three guesses and a hint. Starts with alt, ends in right.

[bennyboy]

Recall my having mentioned that the latest round of white supremacist normalization made it's rounds on popular skeptic channels?

Here are people who are against religion. And now they're against your view. There are two ways to look at it:

1) They are against one kind of dogmatic bullshit, but are anyway racist, just because.
2) They are against dogmatic bullshit in general, and see your attempts to use rhetoric and to avoid fact to promote your views as dogmatic bullshit.

Obviously, you are going to put Harris, and anyone else who attempts to use fact in any discussion of race in column (1). Obviously, I'm going to put them in column (2) unless they demonstrate that they have malicious intent.

See, that's the difference. When people seek facts, you see that AS malicious intent already. I don't.

---

Its defining for the alt right, sure.   I was honestly hoping for something a little less lunacy confirming out of that one.  In light of the fact that the author directly addressed this notion, does it really make sense to think that the article confirms some nutball conspiracy against free speech?  Or, as unkind as it will inevitably seem to you, might it make more sense to assume that you will interpret any information you come acrossed in this way?  

No, I think the writer of that article is basically sincere. He's not hysterically raving about Harris' white, or about his white supremacist script carrying. He wants to frame things in a certain way, and that's fine.

Beyond that, I think that you might be swallowing the koolaid here, as well..because this conversation isn't actually occurring at high levels of academia.  At that level, the issue has been settled definitively and not in favor of scientific racism.  It's occurring at the pulp level of popular consumption where it's maintenance is politically useful and it's inaccuracy completely irrelevant.  

Bullshit.

Now here's a question for you.  Who told you that was anything I would think or say, or that it bore even a passing resemblance to any position of mine?  I'll give you three guesses and a hint.  Starts with alt, ends in right.

The PC left was identified as an annoying bunch of gits long before the alt-right ever existed. If you choose to call them, alt-right, then rock and roll. But I'd say very many among the moderate right AND the moderate left don't like the meme-spouting, fact-avoiding bullshit. When the "alt-right" consist of normal people who don't like forced demographic division as a political ideology are called "alt-right," then you are using words wrongly.

[The Grand Nudger]

See, that's the difference.  When people seek facts, you see that AS malicious intent already.  I don't.

Those channels were seeking subs, not facts.  It's unfortunate that they became a vehicle for normalization, but that's how normalization works.  Fact.

No, I think the writer of that article is basically sincere.  He's not hysterically raving about Harris' white, or about his white supremacist script carrying.  He wants to frame things in a certain way, and that's fine.

Did you find anything in the article that might have relevance to the way that you have engaged in this discussion?  

Beyond that, I think that you might be swallowing the koolaid here, as well..because this conversation isn't actually occurring at high levels of academia.  At that level, the issue has been settled definitively and not in favor of scientific racism.  It's occurring at the pulp level of popular consumption where it's maintenance is politically useful and it's inaccuracy completely irrelevant.  

Bullshit.

What, specifically..is bullshit about that?  That academia has come done resoundingly against scientific racism, that scientific racism persists in spite of that at the popular level as a political or ideological lever, or that scientific racism is innacurate?  

The PC left was identified as an annoying bunch of gits long before the alt-right ever existed.  If you choose to call them, alt-right, then rock and roll.  But I'd say very many among the moderate right AND the moderate left don't like the meme-spouting, fact-avoiding bullshit.  When the "alt-right" consist of normal people who don't like forced demographic division as a political ideology are called "alt-right," then you are using words wrongly.

I think you might want to take another look into american political history on that one.  Specifically between 1970 and 1990. Your own complaints are the current incarnation of an anxiety that arose within a subset of the right (and the white, lol) in response to a newly solidified reality of civil rights...and a shifting demographic of political power combined with a realignment of the dem party - what passes for leftism in Murrica (all in the context of a then current cold war). The alt right contains plenty of normal people...that's kindof the problem. Alot of normal people are firmly alt right. That wasn't accidental...it took alot of normalizing effort. Having completed that effort on the right (all the way to whitehouse, no less), the effort has been expanded to include you and members of the disaffected left, by playing up to your fears and resentments, by giving you the patina of a credible basis for the ideology. By centering you.

As I've noted many times in thread, none of the fears produced by that anxiety have come to pass....but..like the return of christ....those afflicted are still waiting, anyday now.

I get that pc and sj annoy you..but is that actually a problem? Or, rather, is it anyone else's problem?