Free Speech - Jordan Peterson Debate Live 9:30 EST Saturday

by cofty 85 Replies latest social current

  • Simon
    Simon
    I think it is possible to find many on the left who does not condone that behaviour at all. Here is what I mean:
    • Crazy left ...
    • Crazy right ...

    That's a good example. The crazy left is obviously crazy. But the problem we have now is that the crazy right actually isn't. All the things they say about the crazy-left's refusal to even associate Islam for Islamic terrorism is perfectly true and blatantly obvious to all but the most die-hard politically correct. So the populace, presented with a poor choice chose the one where they are not the bad guys, because most are not. The irony being that in doing so they become the bad guys because they provide a path for expansion and emboldenment of the extremist right.

    The left is failing to put forward a believable and acceptable vision because of an obsession with extreme liberalism and idealism which actually puts at risk the already-won freedoms. Really, it's like we lose the hard-fought "territory" such as a woman's right to chose because some idiots think we need to also take the next hill, and the troops die trying to win the irrelevant and strategically unimportant "right to be called Mx".

    There were decent options in the election that didn't rely on making the moderate middle into the enemy and instead trying to appeal to them. Bernie campaigned on liberal ideals that actually mattered but he was shut-out by people more concerned about their own careers and advancement compared to that of the people.

  • bohm
    bohm
    That's a good example. The crazy left is obviously crazy. But the problem we have now is that the crazy right actually isn't.

    Do you not think it is crazy to call for a national database of all Muslims in violation of the 1st and 5th amendment?

    The right-wing propaganda mill on e.g. facebook associate all on the left with the extreme left. That is what I call *crazy right* behavior, and what I think is both unfair and dangerous. For instance, I got called a "regressive leftish" the other day, presumably because my dislike for Trump automatically put me in the same camp as those who believe Islam can do nothing wrong and therefore there is no reason to make a distinction.

    So the populace, presented with a poor choice chose the one where they are not the bad guys, because most are not.

    That is the dichotomy that the alt-right is doing it's very best to push (a vote for Hillary is a vote for <example of crazy-left behaviour>), however, I think it at least deserves some scrutiny. Hillary did play on her being the first woman candidate at times but it was quite subtle. It is difficult to see how Hillary Clinton in her own words actually demonized workers or white men, however, there was (and remains) a huge cottage industry who tries (with very considerable success) to interpret Hillary and associate her with the crazy left.

    The left is failing to put forward a believable and acceptable vision because of an obsession with extreme liberalism and idealism which actually puts at risk the already-won freedoms.

    Hillary Clinton was not a good salesman but her campaign DID have vision. For instance, she had proposals for 10 billion dollars to help create new industries in the areas affected by the loss of coal mining. That is a positive message that could actually be implemented and which would have benefitted the "poor white men". However, that message was drowned out by a sea of propaganda where she was only interested in lobbyists and left-wing crybabies.

    Trump brought absolutely nothing to the table (oh yes, he will open the mines, presumably by tweeting the owners of the mines...). That is why I don't think that her "elitism" and "distance" had anything to do with reality because she is running against the epitome of someone who don't give a fuck about a working class person unless they are in his way for a building project.

  • Simon
    Simon
    Do you not think it is crazy to call for a national database of all Muslims in violation of the 1st and 5th amendment?

    A national database of foreign nationals, some of whom may be looking to conduct terrorism is not necessarily crazy and not necessarily in violation of the 1st and 5th amendment.

    This is the problem. The knee-jerk reaction by the left to comments about Islam is "no, it must be defended". Trump's rhetoric may be misguided and ugly but is more arguably correct:

    The fact is that some muslims are a threat. The left's claim that none are and there is no threat is obviously more incorrect and harder to swallow based on the evidence we've all seen. The right's claims which inflate the threat and the number who could be dangerous is wrong but by degrees so appears more reasonable.

    The right-wing propaganda mill on e.g. facebook associate all on the left with the extreme left. That is what I call *crazy right* behavior, and what I think is both unfair and dangerous.

    I was going off the example comments you gave, I'm not suggesting that all the things that all the people on the right say is "right".

    Hillary did play on her being the first woman candidate at times but it was quite subtle. It is difficult to see how Hillary Clinton in her own words actually demonized workers or white men, however, there was (and remains) a huge cottage industry who tries (with very considerable success) to interpret Hillary and associate her with the crazy left.

    She did call half the republicans a basket of deplorables (which, given the amount of analysis and planning that her emails showed went into her campaign looked even more idiotic) but it's really the sum of her position. In the same way that we judge Trump not just by what he says but those around him.

    Hillary Clinton was not a good salesman but her campaign DID have vision. For instance, she had proposals for 10 billion dollars to help create new industries in the areas affected by the loss of coal mining. That is a positive message that could actually be implemented and which would have benefitted the "poor white men". However, that message was drowned out by a sea of propaganda where she was only interested in lobbyists and left-wing crybabies.

    No, she had the chance to stay on message but again and again she simply focused on how unsuitable Trump was - all the time just talking about him and repeating the mistakes that other republicans had made in the primaries without telling people what SHE was going to do for THEM. Instead, it was what THEY were going to do for HER (make her the historic first woman president)

    She failed to prosecute the case against him despite his pitifully weak intellect. She didn't dismantle his arguments, just labelled them ugly and his supporters too.

    Trump brought absolutely nothing to the table (oh yes, he will open the mines, presumably by tweeting the owners of the mines...). That is why I don't think that her "elitism" and "distance" had anything to do with reality because she is running against the epitome of someone who don't give a fuck about a working class person unless they are in his way for a building project.

    This is where the left were deaf to the electorate and how his message was resonating:

    He was going to clamp down on immigration, especially muslims coming into the country, and jobs being exported overseas. To many voters, these were the most important issues in their life, a threat to their way of life and possibly their life itself.

    His promises were memorable because they were tangible. They could be visualized - yes, many times because they were outlandish, but that made them memorable.

    What exactly did Hillary promise, other than to be the first female president? More pandering to the loonies?

  • bohm
    bohm

    A national database of foreign nationals, some of whom may be looking to conduct terrorism is not necessarily crazy and not necessarily in violation of the 1st and 5th amendment.

    Okay but now you are just changing what I said. There is already a database with people entering the US and that's perfectly legal. What I referred to was a database of American citizens based on their religious affiliation. THAT is what many civil rights groups are questioning. So do you think THAT is crazy?

    The fact is that some muslims are a threat. The left's claim that none are and there is no threat

    I am part of "the left" and I make no such claim. I think you will be hard pressed to find anyone on the left (even the crazy left, but let us leave those aside) who claim that no Muslims are a threat, and there is no threat from Muslims. Can you see how that sentence is both factually false and perpetuate a false dichotomy?

    but it's really the sum of her position. In the same way that we judge Trump not just by what he says but those around him.

    I raise you troll extraordinaire Steve Bannon!. I have tried to re-evaluate my thoughts about Hillary after the election and I have many times found that I too fell back on negative generalizations about her (like, I too knew she was somewhat involved in the PC business). I am struggling to find concrete reasons for those beliefs now in what she actually said and did and I am thinking that I too was trolled.

    Yes, as part of her compaign she advocated LBGT rights and equal pay. So what? I also believe in those things, and without someone who keeps reminding me that she must also accept every blue-haired talking point it is actually difficult to see that as something to hold against her ( but enter breitbart...).

    Meanwhile, Donald trumps wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Comparing the two, one is saying something I obviously think is a step backwards, the other is advocating things that, if I don't read things into it, I happen to agree are good things.

    No, she had the chance to stay on message but again and again she simply focused on how unsuitable Trump was - all the time just talking about him and repeating the mistakes that other republicans had made in the primaries without telling people what SHE was going to do for THEM.

    Well, that is not my impression from watching the presidential debates. She kept mentioning things she would do, etc. etc., and Trump kept making (often quite plainly false) statements about her with very little content. Should we go over their exchange of coal mining as an example?

    We got to agree on a metric for how we compare their statements.

    Do you claim that Trump spoke more or less about specific policy steps than Clinton? Do you think that Trump mentioned Clintons unsuitability more or less often than she spoke about his? (The phrase "crooked Hillary" comes to mind, as does his call to put her in jail on public television).

    She failed to prosecute the case against him despite his pitifully weak intellect. She didn't dismantle his arguments, just labelled them ugly and his supporters too.

    Trumps lies were documented by all major newspapers through the race. That did not seem to have any effect at all. It is very hard to see what she could actually have done when the truth does not appear to matter.

    He was going to clamp down on immigration, especially muslims coming into the country, and jobs being exported overseas. To many voters, these were the most important issues in their life, a threat to their way of life and possibly their life itself.
    His promises were memorable because they were tangible. They could be visualized - yes, many times because they were outlandish, but that made them memorable.
    What exactly did Hillary promise, other than to be the first female president? More pandering to the loonies?

    No college tuition at public colleges for families making less than 125'000, maintain affordable health care, no tax increase on the middle class, limit on super PAC spendings, ...

    I agree Trumps message was simpler: To make America great. Hillary Clintons goals were dull because she was bounded by what was feasible when she wrote them out...

  • Simon
    Simon
    Okay but now you are just changing what I said. There is already a database with people entering the US and that's perfectly legal. What I referred to was a database of American citizens based on their religious affiliation. THAT is what many civil rights groups are questioning. So do you think THAT is crazy?

    No, I don't. What does it violate? Why, if you can show a link between a militant religious ideology would you not want to have some handle on who those people are, especially newly arrived ones or those with links to other, radical individuals. How do you track that without some form of registry?

    I'm not arguing for it, just showing how easy it is for it to be reasonably argued and appealing to the general electorate.

    I am part of "the left" and I make no such claim. I think you will be hard pressed to find anyone on the left (even the crazy left, but let us leave those aside) who claim that no Muslims are a threat, and there is no threat from Muslims. Can you see how that sentence is both factually false and perpetuate a false dichotomy?

    You do make the claim every time you object to someone suggesting that there is a link between Islam and terrorism or that even asking if there could be a link makes someone evil.

    I have tried to re-evaluate my thoughts about Hillary after the election and I have many times found that I too fell back on negative generalizations about her (like, I too knew she was somewhat involved in the PC business). I am struggling to find concrete reasons for those beliefs now in what she actually said and did and I am thinking that I too was trolled.

    So given that so many of those on her side of the political spectrum struggle to come up with positive opinion of her, why is anyone surprised that she lost? Coupled with the "appealing" popular messages Trump was spewing out, the left failed spectacularly and continues to do so. They are fighting the wrong war. They are are battling over forward-ground long lost while the forces assemble on the shoreline.

    Meanwhile, Donald trumps wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Comparing the two, one is saying something I obviously think is a step backwards, the other is advocating things that, if I don't read things into it, I happen to agree are good things.

    And that's the point. In trying to push trivial and stupid liberal agendas the left has thrown away decades of progress which will likely take decades more to regain, if they ever are.

    So while some think issues like "call me Xi" are trivial and we should all just comply, the reality is that moronic assholes like those SJWs will result in REAL deaths over REAL issues. Just not theirs, because contrary to all that they claim, they are simply selfish spoiled brats.

    Well, that is not my impression from watching the presidential debates. She kept mentioning things she would do, etc. etc., and Trump kept making (often quite plainly false) statements about her with very little content. Should we go over their exchange of coal mining as an example?
    Do you claim that Trump spoke more or less about specific policy steps than Clinton? Do you think that Trump mentioned Clintons unsuitability more or less often than she spoke about his? (The phrase "crooked Hillary" comes to mind, as does his call to put her in jail on public television).

    To me, the "sum" of the debates is her attacking him for being silly and unsuitable, and him making claims about what he's going to do. His claims were far more memorable, she always came across as contrived and an insincere act.

    Trumps lies were documented by all major newspapers through the race. That did not seem to have any effect at all. It is very hard to see what she could actually have done when the truth does not appear to matter.

    Because no one reads the news, they watch the TV who occasionally read the news but typically chase sensationalism. The electorate chose to weaken the 4th estate and so get trump. Everyone who pushes for instant issues and YouTube videos of confrontation instead of proper reasoned debate contributes to this.

    BLM promote shouting at people, and so who could shout the loudest became the standard for success.

    Trump won.

    No college tuition at public colleges for families making less than 125'000, maintain affordable health care, no tax increase on the middle class, limit on super PAC spendings, ...

    Too complicated (tiered tax breaks), to abstract or talk of "middle class" as a segment instead of talking to real working people. Trump seemed more genuine and talking to them, Clinton always sounds like she's talking about people she read about. Her only decent policies were all stolen from Bernie.

    I agree Trumps message was simpler: To make America great. Hillary Clintons goals were dull because she was bounded by what was feasible when she wrote them out...

    Yes, "dream small" isn't as good a message.

    America wanted change, it was clear, and the democrats chose to serve up Clinton. Heck, even Jeb! looked more fresh than that cold dead fish.

  • bohm
    bohm
    No, I don't. What does it violate? Why, if you can show a link between a militant religious ideology would you not want to have some handle on who those people are, especially newly arrived ones or those with links to other, radical individuals. How do you track that without some form of registry?

    It would likely violate the 1st and 5th amendment, see for instance the UCLAs thoughts on the matter. The idea of creating and maintaining a database of citizens because of their religious views (or other ideas) is fundamentally unsound, but very likely also unconstitutional.

    To me, the "sum" of the debates is her attacking him for being silly and unsuitable, and him making claims about what he's going to do. His claims were far more memorable, she always came across as contrived and an insincere act

    Most of trumps proposals were memorable exactly because they were either likely unconstitutional or impractical. here is a genuine question: Who of the two

    here is a genuine question: Who of the two attacked the other the most and the most viciously? Trump, for instance, systematically labeled Hillary "Crooked Hillary".

    Because no one reads the news, they watch the TV who occasionally read the news but typically chase sensationalism. The electorate chose to weaken the 4th estate and so get trump. Everyone who pushes for instant issues and YouTube videos of confrontation instead of proper reasoned debate contributes to this.
    BLM promote shouting at people, and so who could shout the loudest became the standard for success.
    Trump won.

    I agree. First Poland more or less succumbed to right-wing nationalists who are now weakening their democratic institutions and free press (something very rarely mentioned), then brexit (again, a decision made on very widely promulgated lies which were known to be lies), then Trump. Perhaps Le Pen next and then something really awful in Germany; if that happens I am really going to fear for the next decade.

    Too complicated (tiered tax breaks), to abstract or talk of "middle class" as a segment instead of talking to real working people.

    Perhaps. But that is then her fault for making feasible solutions that could be funded rather than just saying she will fix everything and throw out the mexicans.

  • bohm
    bohm

    Let me clarify: I would have preferred Bernie if I was an American, but Hillary since I am not (she promised more stability and a continuation of current policies).

    I think both are miles better candidates than Trump on all important metrics, as do I think every single previous candidate in my life time would have been a better pick than Trump.

  • scotsman
    scotsman

    lol Cofty, we're at cross purposes

    I did not say that I refuse to use Ms. I said - "I have never referred to anybody as Ms in my life, I have also never referred to a man as Mx and never will."
    I have never been asked to refer to somebody as Ms. I'm amused that you would presume to declare my opinions on anything "unacceptable".

    I thought you found Ms unacceptable, I didn't find your opinion unacceptable. I suppose I have to contact people I haven't met, in writing, hence my fairly frequent use of Ms. Was the "never will" about Ms or just Mx?

  • LoveUniHateExams
    LoveUniHateExams

    I'm dying to see the OP's vid and will do soon, hopefully.

    Here's a question for all the posters on this forum:

    Prof Peterson refuses to use the terms 'Mx', 'Zi' and 'Hir' when addressing students and colleagues.

    Should he be free from police investigations and should he be allowed to continue in his university post, free from internal discipline?

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    It seems to me it's not so much that Jordan Peterson must use certain words, but rather that he should avoid using words that are offensive to the people he is talking to. In avoiding offensive terms of address there is not necessarily a compulsion to use a particular alternative.

    In many situations we can get away with not using pronouns, instead simply using names, gestures, or even "you at the back". I very much doubt anyone is getting into trouble simply for avoiding pronouns.

    The problem probably begins when someone asks to be addressed in a certain way and this guy says no, and what's more I'll address you instead in precisely the way that you find offensive.

    So it's not about being forced to use certain words. It's about Jordan Peterson insisting on his "right" to use words to describe other people that they find offensive.

    If we agree that black people shouldn't be addressed using the N word or women shouldn't be addressed with sexists names like, pet, doll, honey, or whatever. Then it seems pretty reasonable that transgender people be allowed to insist that they not be addressed using language that they find distressing. I know I would find it unpleasant to be addressed as a woman. Jordan Peterson claims he wouldn't care, but that just makes him either pretty strange or a liar as far I can see. In either case it doesn't matter, most people would find it distressing to be addressed by the wrong gender in spite of pleas to discontinue.

    The onus is on Jordan Peterson to explain why it would be wrong to address a black person with the N word, or a woman as "doll" or other sexist terms, but that it's okay, in fact it is his "right", to address someone as he and him and his, who does not feel themselves to be a man.

    We have a president of the United States who is intimidating the press, encouraged violence in the campaign, is stigmatising minority groups, and threatened to put political opponents in jail. Any sense of proportion at this moment would allocate no time whatever to mister storm in a teacup Peterson.

    Interesting bohm points out he's making money and gaining a following by means of this storm in a teacup.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit