jordan peterson

even though thats prolly not a real question, here's an answer:

 

i think you've hit a point, imo. whether you're talking about people on the left or right, people do want to have some sort of genuine discussion. especially in politics. regardless of their position. or the amount of yelling.

 

my only point was to add to that, that the right are - intellectually speaking - coming from an underdog position. and as far as i'm concerned, their "successful attack against intellectualism" wasn't even that successful to begin with. even though they might have had some political successes, I don't see that as a success against intellectualism. that has more to do with political power. and less to do with intellectualism having lost some political game if you will. and that's proven with the very point you've made: people are starving for someone to make an actual argument. that implies some form of intellectualism is still wanted. even, or rather especially, by the people who can't make those arguments themselves. which is the majority of the population, btw. so yeah, some people on the right will be cheering for someone like JP. But is that a sign intellectualism is dead? No, it's the opposite. 

  On 5/21/2018 at 3:54 PM, zaphod said:

lol this thread is the same argument repeated a hundred times.

 

"i didn't bother reading this fucking thread here's a bunch of statements"

"maybe read the thread, all those points are addressed"

"WHOA WHOA DAMN DUDE i just said i have no idea what i'm talking about"

  On 5/21/2018 at 4:25 PM, goDel said:

my only point was to add to that, that the right are - intellectually speaking - coming from an underdog position. and as far as i'm concerned, their "successful attack against intellectualism" wasn't even that successful to begin with. even though they might have had some political successes, I don't see that as a success against intellectualism. that has more to do with political power. and less to do with intellectualism having lost some political game if you will. and that's proven with the very point you've made: people are starving for someone to make an actual argument. that implies some form of intellectualism is still wanted. even, or rather especially, by the people who can't make those arguments themselves. which is the majority of the population, btw. so yeah, some people on the right will be cheering for someone like JP. But is that a sign intellectualism is dead? No, it's the opposite.

In that debate posted a page or two ago I think Stephen Fry pretty much nailed it - It's not the success of the right but the failure of the left that's resulted in this current political climate:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv8QvnrUyUs

yeah, saw that. he makes a good point. i logged out soon after dyson went in, though. was he going for a "if you're against political correctness, you're supporting racism/suppression/sexism" kind of argument? might as well kill free speech and return to your protected and safe bubbles.

he went for a "jordan peterson youre a mean white man" "argument"

 

hey I can also ad hominem a thinker and render all they say useless

 

"look at zizek he's so slimy, lol idiot commie.. doesn't understand capitalism what a shithead"

(note: I don't think like this at all, in this thread I have attempted to refute points and keep ad hominem at a minimum)

 

perhaps a debate should be had on how social media is affecting our level of discussion, how good/bad it is for democracy etc.

 

edit: and I know we have had the postmodernism thing pages back alco, I'm just making the point

Edited May 21, 2018 by MIXL2

social media has only brought to light what was always there to begin with. perhaps the difference is that nowadays anyone can use google and think he's a genius. the dunning kruger effect has become more pronounced.

 

attacking people is the easy way. actually making an argument takes a lot of study. especially in politics. and because politics touches everyone, there's a lot of people being attacked. you can be damn sure not everyone will invest the time and energy to understand the details or the opposite side of the argument.

 

we're all guilty of it... (edit) i am too obvsly. it takes a lot to make an actual argument work. we all know it. i hope. but how often are we willing to admit we havent put in the effort to make it work? just shooting from the hip. because of values/emotions/tribalism. you dont see many people admitting. but we all see it often. funny right? ;)

Edited May 21, 2018 by goDel

indeed, I'm not saying I have never done it.. but I did imply it, that's dumb

 

imma go clean my room

  On 5/21/2018 at 4:42 PM, goDel said:

i logged out soon after dyson went in, though.

Dyson definitely lost credibility in that debate when he [seemingly completely un-ironically] said 'Y the rage bruh ?'

just what an utter face palm it is to appear in this thread, not read the discussion and then lecture people on ad hominem and political attacks. this is a thread about a guy who regularly uses his massive platform to slander, denigrate and lie about his political enemies. this guy begins his discussion on Foucault in a university setting with the following: “a more reprehensible individual you can hardly ever discover or even dream up no matter how twisted your imagination” and then proceeds to just make up slanderous lies about him before an audience of students. this is the guy who calls women protesting his events as “crazy harpies.” etc etc. We’ve been over this bullshit jfc

 

this absolutely has to be the dumbest thread on this site

it was a slowly evolving disaster. apparent from the first few sentences. he was trying to take a rational/objective approach, but his emotions were right on the surface. which is kinda sad, because there might be some justifications for him being emotional. but it became too hard to follow. i can only imagine that arguments against political correctness cary a different meaning for people dealing with a history of slavery. that, i can sympathise with. even though i'm currently purely speculating (obvsly). but it would be easier to listen to his arguments if he starts by explaining his emotions instead of trying to cover them up with nice words and pretending to make some kind of rational point.

 

either that, or he was just very excited about being on a stage. and he's normally more an introverted kind of guy. so basically a fish out the water kind of thing. who knows. unlikely though, seeing the frequency with which he's in the public eye. 

 

there could be an interesting argument though. where you argue that the attack on political correctness is also an attack on movements like #blacklivesmatter or #metoo, for instance. i can see some valid arguments could be made to support it. not that i would immediately agree, or anything. just that there's something to be said which can be valid.

  On 5/21/2018 at 5:30 PM, Alcofribas said:

this is the guy who calls women protesting his events as “crazy harpies.” etc etc.

Was this about the woman at the Queen's University lecture, she definitely comes across as that (the Webster definition of it anyway i.e. "an angry and unpleasant woman" ) :

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/4066542/woman-arrested-window-damaged-following-protest-at-queens-over-controversial-lecture/

  Quote

According to police, the suspect, who is not a student, broke the window while standing on a ledge banging on it. She then fled but was picked up not far from the demonstration by plainclothes officers. Once handcuffed, police say the woman became violent and began kicking at one officer. Police say the suspect also tried to kick out the window of a police cruiser.

I'm telling u guys jbp is the new skrillex

  On 5/21/2018 at 5:48 PM, MIXL2 said:

I'm telling u guys jbp is the new kanye west

 

fixt

 

edit: or foucault. just to piss alco off ;)

Edited May 21, 2018 by goDel

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ddzf9Mm4hdY?start=159&end=164&autoplay=1

  On 5/21/2018 at 5:46 PM, mcbpete said:

 

  On 5/21/2018 at 5:30 PM, Alcofribas said:

this is the guy who calls women protesting his events as “crazy harpies.” etc etc.

Was this about the woman at the Queen's University lecture, she definitely comes across as that (the Webster definition of it anyway i.e. "an angry and unpleasant woman" ) :

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/4066542/woman-arrested-window-damaged-following-protest-at-queens-over-controversial-lecture/

  Quote

According to police, the suspect, who is not a student, broke the window while standing on a ledge banging on it. She then fled but was picked up not far from the demonstration by plainclothes officers. Once handcuffed, police say the woman became violent and began kicking at one officer. Police say the suspect also tried to kick out the window of a police cruiser.

it was not and that’s beside the point. either ad hominem is acceptable or not, looking up “crazy harpy” in the dictionary will not help.

I'm afraid you've lost me... (I'm a little slow)

no worries m9. we shall celebrate fsol regardless. ; )

i looked up crazy harpy in the dictionary and saw this: 

lol

  On 5/21/2018 at 6:51 PM, juiceciuj said:

i looked up crazy harpy in the dictionary and saw this:

what is this ad hominem attack upon me? mods, intervene to thwart this behavior.

this thread: unchecked post-modernism run amok

* creates safe space for alco with a bunch of facepalms *

Is 'ad hominem' one of those new fangled pocketmons that the kids play on their game genies ?

I want to print this thread and fuck it in the ass

  On 5/21/2018 at 7:10 PM, MIXL2 said:

I want to print this thread and fuck it in the ass

 

  On 5/21/2018 at 4:45 AM, prdctvsm said: