Discussion in 'EtcetEra' started by IrishNinja, Feb 7, 2018.
There are many other topics were he is much more taxative.
There is always an army of people willing to throw out of context quotes with missing parts to try to take Peterson down without confronting his actual ideas. I repeat myself, but I would love for the left to choose a champion and see how he defends identity politics against Petersons individualist speech.
I didn't comment about the gay marriage quote because I hadn't heard or read anything about it.
This shit appeals to a certain kind of character. No random hapless innocent person can get 'taken for a ride' on this shit when they really don't believe in it.
These are the kinds of people who wont go nazi when its a minority movement, but are hedging their bets so if it does breakout, they can be fully on board, and if it doesnt, they can just fade back into obscurity. Until next time.
As for your second question, you guys are going to police our neighborhoods regardless of what we want because we're an "other".
Quite simply put the reason you not seeing a ISIS-Support defense force like you're seeing neo-nazi/alt-right/white supremacists is because ISIS wants to cleanse out white folks as well as others. Once white America is a target (real or perceived point in case....the original Black Panther movement), suddenly the whole meet in the middle aspect is out the window.
To me there is no difference between an ISIS supporter and a Neo-Nazi/Alt-Right/Skinhead/White Supremacist. And definitely not enough difference to be told by this country over and over again to tolerate them and "empathise" with them, and understand their perspective. Both groups could die tomorrow and I would feel about the same tbh.
And ESPECIALLY if that otherwise bad group makes them feel empowered or gives them a sense of power. Most people just don't have the will of resistance to turn that down.
Thank you for this thread, support your local antifa folks.
And just in time, the Onion strikes: https://www.theonion.com/white-supremacist-tired-after-long-day-of-interviews-wi-1822818329
The man has stated that humans are hierarchical by nature, that feminists (and women) want Muslim men (and men) to dominate them.
His use of the phrase cultural marxism.
Given this coupled with his missunderstanding of the Canadian law that escapes my memory atm many (including myself) see a pattern that syncs very well into the alt-right line of thinking.
EVERYONE has the will or resistance to turn it down. They choose not to.
But when someone is darker skinned speaking in a foreign language suddenly its easier to draw the line with, “Oh that guy, that guys a fucking problem, no redeeming him, gotta stamp em out to keep us safe”
When he says 'I think', that's an opinion. Not a statement of a fact.
And the context is the paradox of feminism attacking western masculinity while defending foreign cultures which are oppressive against women. That's important. That's not the same as saying women like to be dominated by men. That would imply all women. That's something he would never consciously say.
One of the more common things I hear when I have conversations with people who are Trump supporters and I enlighten them to certain things like how for instance how AT&T when they gave $1000 to employees that it was money already owed to them after a labor settlement or how Carrier was still cutting jobs and going to Mexico or how coal is a dying industry that needs to be phased out if for no other reason than its an unsustainable business to keep a large workforce employeed the answer back is usually “well I don’t know about ALL that, I just think it’s good people are getting some extra cash.”
Which fine I don’t think any of us can really expect that the average American is going to be that invested in the stories behind the stories. Because once again, people are swayed by emotion, not facts. That’s why when I have conversations about things like Charlottesville with people I genuinely view as reasonable human beings they will often point at ANTIFA as also a problem. Why? Because some of the shit they do in the eyes of an outside observer doesn’t look right or fair either. Of course then they have to concede when I bring in the fact of how many people one side has killed over the other and that argument falls apart.
But honestly average people are not experts in every single aspect of what is currently going on in society. People are honestly surprised when I tell them Robert E. Lee was a staunch opponent of Confederate monuments and he’d sound like a bleeding heart liberal today if he were around seeing how much people are crying over the want of confederate flags and monuments. They are unaware that most confederate monuments were built during Civil Rights pushes as a direct reaction to spite the movement and think they’re about heritage.
This is partially because of a failure in our schools to properly teach these things, but it’s also frankly people who will claim to have more important things going on in their lives than to give five minutes researching why we still have confederate monuments when someone comes along and says “well it’s about regional pride and genuflecting on our history.”
I think it is in this way that one becomes complicit in something without fully realizing it. That they are honestly frankly not versed enough in a subject yet choose to support regardless due to a lack of information or a desire to hear said information, and that lack of desire can come from different angles. First, is just genuinely not giving two shits, just going based on feeling and then forgetting about it and focusing on something else. The other is when presented with contradicting information in the guise of being insinuated as a Nazi for instance tends to put up a defensive wall. If some stranger tomorrow walked up to any one of us and accused us of being a Nazi, I’d think we’d be a bit taken aback by that and likely not want to listen to what someone has to say beyond that. If you’re going to start from the position that the person you’re talking to is some sort of cartoon villain levels of evil, it’s going to be hard to present yourself as anything other than a cartoon version of the boy who cried wolf. Because if you’re going to paint everything under the sun as a Nazi then the term will quickly lose all meaning, which I think exactly plays into the Trump game of removing meaning from speech.
You guys are like cult members.
You are applying a broad label and claiming this label needs to be destroyed and de-platformed without specifying what exactly it is, whatever you believe, behavior such as this is not productive?
Zero Books podcast are supposed to be having Peterson on soon so he will be challenged by someone who is actually qualified to debate his strawmanning of both Postmodernism and Marxism. It is not going to go well for Peterson as its blinding obvious he has not studied either topic in any depth.
So if someone who seems otherwise good looks like they're being red-pilled, you don't accuse them of being bigots, assholes etc. because all that's accomplishing is antagonizing someone who may not have been leaning that way before, but will lean closer to it after you're done ostracizing them simply because they're being communicated to by facists or neo-Nazis or whatever (and not even initiating that communication, at that). When you see that, you step in, treat the individual with some respect and try being optimistic about the situation. Reassure them they don't need to drift off to that other side, that you appreciate them and the fact they stand with you. Make them feel like they belong, because if you don't, the other guys sure as hell will.
If you can't see that you're letting your anger blind you from logic, and that's dangerous.
innate will in its purest form, yes. But things like environment, peers, parenting, social status, education level etc. also influence that will of resistance. Those things can either strengthen it, or weaken it. That should be obvious.
And I mentioned kids because they're the most impressionable and indoctrinating them to a toxic philosophy will create new generations to carry the torch. That seems to be the biggest reason to push de-platforming, but some of ways some of the people here are framing it comes off like totalitarian censorship, which I don't support. There are better ways to marginalize hate speech and the people who practice it on the internet, I even listed them in earlier posts.
But those methods would require actual work with the various parties involved, including the websites, including government agencies, and would need to be implemented with the upmost of care. But at least they would be long-term solutions still allowing for freedom of expression, unlike the heavy-handed de-platforming which feels more like a stopgap or temporary measure.
Sugestion to the OT:
Academic definition of fascism, nazism, left, right, Antifascism. With bibliography.
Its a pain,but i think it would be good for the discussions
Excellent thread, OP.
But holy shit, the both-sides-ism that some people peddled. Sitting in the center is not wisdom, it’s inaction. And one of these days you’ll probably have to pick a side, and ask yourself which side of history you’ll want to be on.
“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”
-Archbishop Desmond Tutu
If we're pretending that racial discrimination is a mental disorder, and not the fruition of systematic tools put in place across society to enforce racial segregation that places one race above others, systems that are broadly allowed to continue by said race as it benefits them on a day-to-day level, thereby breeding this level of innate privilege as they begin, at some degree, to notice that the fallacies of their own superiority is but sweet nothings of "You're better than them" whispered into theirs and their families ears for centuries by the ruling bodies of the time (as it made them easier to control and oppress other races) as we are now living in an age where accessibility to both history and/or culture beyond your own teachings exist in almost every screen we have access to, and as such a multi-generational level of sustained hatred and bigotry is now, as if by impulsion, is choosing to reject the realities that they aren't the centre of the world.
You say you aren't, but mentally disturbed is what you are describing.
U know someone gets a hostile ex that cheats accuses of physical abuse, rape and child abuse etc, and is proven innocent in court. Divorce may rape them anyway with hefty alimony and child support.
They go down MRA rabbit hole become alt are doxxed cant get employed. Suddenly jailed for not being able to pay child support. Raped in jail given hiv. And suddenly homelessness jail and sentenced to death.
There are probably genocidal supremacists but there are also those who say genocide is wrong and merely use the word nazi to represent a false glorified idea of a group that never committed genocide. Based on the nonsense conspiracy of holocaust denial. Wouldnt be surprised if theyve tossed all the evil under demonization conspiracy and only follow some imaginary nonexistent mythical nazi.
Like say someone recruits talking about slavery how bad it is and how it never happened. How can they at any moment go slavery time boys with their misled followers?
Would be like Hillary saying mass deportation out of the blue there wouldnt be acceptance.
Perhaps during the first conference u come armed with bats and crowbars against an unarmed crowd. Next one expect them armored and armed, prepared for self defense. This can quickly lead to deaths as it has already.
You can't have a reasonable discussion or compromise with a facist, bigot, racist, whatever, because they're inherently unreasonable. They've already forfeited rational thought, so the prospect of a rational discussion is both pointless and impossible.
And fuck Boogie. No! What in the hell can I learn from a guy who wants me DEAD because of the color of my skin? He must be crazy. Meet in the middle my ass.
Sheppard's issue was with an over reaction by some college professors and staff.
But, the type of person I'm describing is the sort who is being solicited by/communicated to by those sorts. They aren't perpetuating anything, except maybe talking points provided to them every now and then, but in a way that shows confusion. Hell, a lot of times they aren't perpetuating anything at all, you may just find out some alt-right fascist is talking to them or associating themselves with them, and you attack the person anyway. That's what needs to stop, or at least what you need to cut back on, because making enemies out of that type of person who is either staunchly or quietly on your side of the aisle when it comes to these issues, just pushes them over to the other side, and that's at least partly because of your own actions towards them.
And again, a large number of these impressionable ones, they're kids and teens, they're still trying to find themselves and make sense of the world. When kids feel like they're being punished, they tend to lash out, it's what they do. What you're describing is a perfect course of action towards grown people who are clearly indoctrinated in propagating hate, but is a very poor route to take with impressionable kids and teens who are being stealth-fed this crap by entertainment figures who otherwise shouldn't be putting this stuff in their content whatsoever, or fed this crap by fascists content creators whose material should not be accessible by these kids whatsoever but is because of virtually non-existent universal Standards & Practices and age-gating tools and protocols.
That's where you need to be focusing your efforts at, otherwise you're just cutting the snake's tail rather than its head.
1): That type of systemic racism and privilege can be found in multiple non-Western countries as well. Look at India and its caste system. Look at Saudi Arabia where they actually have laws forbidding Saudi women from marring non-Arab men without their King's deposition.
This kind of stuff usually happens in any country where there's a homogeneous majority of any given group. There isn't a way to completely get rid of that, not that it is inherently bad unless it is being used in a way to actively suppress minority groups, which you outlined above, and that I agree with.
2): You can use education to mentally disturb someone by reducing their foundations of knowledge and faith to nothing, or feeding them conflicting information over periods of time. That's what I was getting at.
These alt-right defense force out in droves last couple days. Gotta humanize them, they aren’t all bad, what we’ve seen as their platform for years now isn’t REALLY what they are all about guyz come on. Some of them even own dogs and are nice to them.
I’m just waiting for the “You know Jews hated Hitler too” line.
They won’t ever feel that unless they realize why they are hurtful people in the first place.
And imo you are wrong about not treating people with respect. You don’t have to be nice to them but you should always treat people with respect. You have to understand a lot of these people learned thier ways from thier parents. If you can break thier beliefs you can truly change peoples minds. And maybe if enough people showed basic decency and respect to where thier elders told them there were none. Who knows what will happen. Maybe not to themselves but thier children.
I know that all sounds very idealistic but I truly do not see a better way.
All this eye for an eye talk is truly saddening on a biblical level ... literally. You can’t forcefully change someone’s mind.
Should probably add that this isn’t saying don’t defend yourself.
start the violence then the vast majority of people would shut them down as would the government, both left and right. My scenario was concerning the much championed "punch a Nazi in the face for talking" meme that's being pushed as if it's an ethical stance that would help the left shut down white supremacy. I believe it would do the opposite, and end up painting the extreme left as equivalently irrational as the alt-right movement. Whether or not leftists think that would be a fair comparison ("but genocide!!") is irrelevant, since the comparison would successfully be made to the vast majority of Americans regardless.
The parodox of claiming to be for the true principles of free speech while also wanting to limit who can come to their country and what they can do is pretty apparent.
I know it's fun to break things down to their basic, hypothetical elements, act like you "totally get it" and are "defending a principle that needs to be upheld", but it's just not looking at the full picture. I was in college once, I went down that road. I regret it. It's easy to look at all these complaints and "concessions" people have to make in order for society to move forward and think that there's something we're losing in the process. But we're really not. It's easy when your rights haven't been infringed upon, to look at any concession that's asked of you to be some kind of offense to your ultimate potential.
I can probably agree that there's a slight nuance that's obscured in this hard-lined stance. But when I examine the crux of the argument, I do not believe in the necessity of a "pure ethnostate". Under any circumstance. Science has proven time and time again that any arguments holding it up have been wrong or mislead. It's always rooted in fear, and fear has always been what's held humanity back.
That said, I'm not exactly sure about how we deal with it. I agree that there's no debate to be had: the debate's over. I'm not willing to "hash it out" or "hear what someone has to say" about it. But I do think people change their behaviors differently, so there might be more than one way to approach people who maybe aren't fully won over by the movement but are seemingly close to buying into the concept of a pure, white ethnostate.
should have stopped him early, yet...here we are
hell, maher had milo on for a gross softball session (and no doubt will again), yet here you are arguing that rather than legitimizing these views further, the real toxicity is not giving them more microphones
literally about nazis and why their views should not be met with the same initial merit as, say, discussing public schooling vs private school vouchers
if noam chomsky debated someone tomorrow on the existence of the armenian genocide, he'd only be lending that nonsense conspiracy theory merit.
no, the initial alt-right growth came from tons of gaming sites abiding gg's hate campaign and huge places like reddit giving platforms to them & MRA type shit.
i'd wager the daily stormer's troubles have impacted things a bit too - again, you're assuming a meritocracy like marketplace of ideas will keep this shit from expanding, when that's clearly failed for a while now & moreover, this crowd has long since shown a propensity to not honestly engage.
there's a great bit in that video i keep pushing (controlling the conversation) that just shows how this crowd says blatantly false things to get get engaged & noticed by more folks, and how it's been working (because so many on the left are so certain if they just dunk on them a bit more & high five, that's how you shut these things down - despite all the evidence to the contrary)
i wish we could say we'd learned a lot since then
likewise, a left/right graph seems a bit wider than the discussion here, no? and given the antifascist nature of this topic...i'm not against slapping a few definitions in there, but to what end? what terms are confusing people here?
the framework for that "both sides' nonsense is already there, we see it with ANTIFA SUPER SOLDIERS and other such headlines - or posts in here talking about "extremes on both sides".
i get your meaning here, but a lot of people are going to do that with your cause regardless. your argument here seems to be that if an action is unpopular or fits the pre-existing framework that both sides are the same to a % of folks, you shouldn't do it.
Also, our quite reasonable hate speech laws nowadays did not work, see the rise of the AfD, which is basically Trumpism without the dementia.
I personally can not recall a single occurrence where de-platforming ever worked. The fascists just go underground, find other venues to communicate, if it’s only their local sports bar.
I mean, yeah, it’s making one feel warm and fuzzy inside and gives an amount of satisfaction if you report some Facebook hate group and it gets banned, but that’s not combating fascism.
Educating people, getting people to go vote, taking to the streets and protest them, be visible and active - and, and at least this has proven to be effective: working to give poor people financial stability seems to be effective against fascist movements.
I mean he, I‘m not really arguing against that kind of „activism“, I just think it will not do much?
Important academic and historical progress has been made by organizations (including the SPLC!) specifically publicizing dangerous viewpoints and then thoroughly dismantling them. Much of the modern academic consensus on both the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide, for example, has developed from both a need and a desire to take down popular denial myths.
It's not "lending merit" to an idea to expose it to criticism, and exposing it to criticism certainly isn't the same as considering it equally valid.