Lemonade Money
Les Medley
And democracy and dictatorship?
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Jordon Peterson
- Thread starter DTA
- Start date
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
DEMOCRACY -- BRITISH: You have two cows. You feed them sheep’s brains and they go mad. The government doesn’t do anything.
DEMOCRACY -- REPRESENTATIVE: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.
DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both cows and drafts you.
thfcsteff
George Hunt
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
This is an issue I share and with several other talking head people that claim to be centrist, "classical liberals" or whatever. Seem almost gleeful in their criticism of anything wrong on the left, can't stop talking about all the different issues they have with the left. But then very little of the same when talking with or about the right. Very happy to platform people with rather troubling views, without real pushback.
On the surface it's just strange. Beyond that... I don't know, but I find myself getting a rather aversive reaction to it.
Can't stand Peterson.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
It matters to the extent of him being intellectually honest about what he is.
What he says, how he says it, what he doesn't say seems to inspire a lot of hate.
He seems like an intelligent guy, I agree. So he should be able to understand those consequences. Yet he goes on, unapologetically inspiring hate.
I think making fun of him is a perfectly reasonable response. Not that alone, but as part of it.
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
He can polarise but he also shares alot of space with the left and has alot of fans that side. Great podcast with him and Chloe Valdary where they discuss and he is hugely open to the idea that all people are inherently racist, that's not your typical right wing subject to tackle. He isn't right wing or the monster people say, he is a deep thinker, it's his job but unfortunately he is highly quotable out of context and it happen alot.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
I don't find him a particularly deep thinker. He wouldn't be worth paying attention to if not for the rather large following and influence he's managed to gather.
Good for him if he's open to the idea of subconscious bias.
I don't listen to his podcasts, maybe I should try one or two. Is he still going on about cultural marxists, neoliberalism and refusing to use people's preferred pronouns?
Getting away from a left-right dichotomy would probably be a decent thing, I can to some extent understand him not wanting either label. What are his views that are typically seen as more left wing or left leaning though? He does seem to have quite a few that are typically seen as more right wing/conservative.
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
He has alot of right wing followers because alot of what he says if you take it out of context is right wing material. Equality of opportunity and not outcome for example, something I agree with was bent out of shape as women don't deserve equal pay which is not what he was saying, that's just an example. His idea of not classifying everyone in a sub group as a way forward for a more United society is another that gets bent out of shape as him saying he doesn't recognise people's rights to believe what they like.
I honestly would say he is a centrist that questions both sides of the spectrum.
I think being critical of him, and it plays into the above, he likes to think he is super intelligent and his overly worded explanations often are why his messages are lost and easy to either take forward in the wrong context or pull apart.
I have a degree in sociology and psychology and if you deep dive into his work he is really interesting. His lectures on Nazi Germany and how evil Hitler was beyond what any of us even believe are super interesting, especially as a Jew like me
TBH I totally get where you are coming from BTW
Last edited:
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
I do agree that his underlying message can easily get lost. I also think there are real issues with his underlying messages, and that there are other reasons why those underlying messages are lost.
But if it's the case, that part of what's going on is that he has right wing followers because what he says is being taken out of context as right wing material shouldn't he do something about that?
He's supposed to be rather intelligent. He's supposed to be a deep thinker. Yet he lets this happen. Is he incapable of more clearly stating his underlying messages? Unwilling? Or just doesn't understand that it's going on? Some other reason?
Questioning both sides sounds good. I would say he's made it pretty clear what he thinks about all things "woke", social justicy, criticical race theory etc. Far beyond questioning, it's been pretty much a full frontal attack.
By comparison how has he questioned Trump for example? I would assume a centrist would have had some real issues with Trump. I haven't really seen him go after Trump, Trumpism or Trump allies in politics much at all. Perhaps that's my ignorance of the man.
What was his opinion on Trump before the 2020 election?
Jurgen the German
Erik Thorstvedt
Like when anybody says “Islam isn’t a race” is conflated with being a racist just because it is something that racists say. Or if you don’t like Meghan Markle then you must be a racist. It’s not ok to dislike her character, there must be some deep rooted racial dislike.
Jurgen the German
Erik Thorstvedt
The democrats have lost the working class in America because they’ve veered too far to the left and keep virtue signalling rather than being practical and trying to make peoples lives better. As much as I dislike the right and their nonsense, a lot of the nonsense on the left is closer to home like stuff being taught in schools. Basically cost democrats a local election in Virginia recently as the dems said parents have no right to demand what is taught to their children in schools. Not to mention the madness that went on at the Washington post recently that stemmed from a journalist retweeting an inappropriate, throwaway joke. One of the woke journalists at the paper demanded they fire him but she went full batbrick on twitter and made a fool of herself, which ultimately led to the paper firing her. Social justice stuff is great when it’s channelled in the right way, but it just tinkles people off when it gets too preachy and petty.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
That may be part of it.
At the same time the Democrats in the US aren't at all particularly far left compared to a lot of other countries. I would argue that the Republicans have moved further right to a greater extent than the Democrats have moved left. Some argue that part of the problem for the Democrats is that they haven't moved far enough left on the issues that really matter to people's day to day economic life.
Taxing the rich, health care for all, limiting military spending, maternity and paternity leave, more money to public education. That would all make people's lives better imo, Democrats can't even get themselves far enough left to do those things.
Is the Virginia example a CRT issue?
I think there are a host of other issues that plays a part in this. Gerrymandering, legalised corruption (sorry, meant to say superpacs, lobby groups and the freedom to freely free money at politicians), conspiracy theories and outright fear mongering. Also the imo unending focus on regressive social justice policies from Republicans and the outrage machine that is conservative media (new and traditional).
To me Peterson seems very much in line with that outrage machine, not at the extreme end mind and he says other things too of course. But he chooses to amplify what is at best smaller issues, and arguably (at the very least) just outright non issues.
Should the Democrats stop fighting for LGBT rights because Republicans will run, and gain traction, on "conserving family values" and "protecting children"?
The Democratic party, leading democratic politicians aren't really leading the charge on firing people for tweets, being woke, defund the police and stuff like that are they? Most of them seem to me rather bland, boring, fairly centrist types.
Jurgen the German
Erik Thorstvedt
I think CRT was a factor. Problem is, you get a different definition of what it is depending on who you ask. Go to a far left person for a definition and they think it’s great. The right don’t like it. Centrists have little issue but think you should wait until children are older before teaching it. For example, does a 6 year old even know what racism is? If they do, it would be a rudimentary understanding at best.
The democrats should always be the party that fights for LGBT, racial equality, better healthcare etc but they need to start applying common sense to issues close to home. Take an issue like trans participation in sport as an example, most people would agree they should have the right to compete but in an open category and not against biological females. I’d say 80-90% of people in this country would agree and it’s probably similar in the states. The problem is the trans lobby and organisations like Stonewall are so militant in their campaigning that anyone who disagrees with them is a transphobe.
The thing is it then sticks. Joe rogan has been called it so often people believe it now not knowing the facts of what he was saying. That a 30 year old man transitioned then fought a woman in mma and fractured her skull. That was what he was saying was wrong.
Last edited:
Jurgen the German
Erik Thorstvedt
It’s a good point. And I can see why a lot of athletes don’t want to get drawn into the debate through fear of being called “transphobic” and it affecting their careers adversely. We’ve got to get to a place where can freely disagree or criticise bad ideas without being worried about being labelled a bigot. Surely people can see it’s wrong when athletes don’t feel they can speak out on certain issues? Especially when it affects them and their livelihood.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
CRT became an issue almost entirely because some people on the right wanted a new moral panic imo. Make as much as possible about this. Outrage, over what exactly? There's very little the left or Democrats can do to not make this an issue.
What parts of CRT was being taught to 6 year olds in the first place?
That 80-90% that agree surly includes the majority of the left and the majority of politicians on the left?
There are definitely things I disagree with many people on the left about. There's a lot of difference even between mainstream leftist politicians. Never mind groups that are outside mainstream politics.
When Peterson talks about this he seems to talk about "the left", "woke", "Democrats", etc as a homogeneous group that all believe or are responsible for what is said by a minority or even individuals.
I do believe that some trans activists take things too far, like with most activist groups. Meanwhile a majority of an entire political party in the US seem hellbent on regressive trans policies, not satisfied with that going after other LGBT rights too.
I could do what Peterson does. Say "the right" and continuing to describe what the most extreme members of the right, who aren't really in a position of real power, think. I choose not to, and I don't have to. Because if I wanted to attack the US right on various issues I could point to mainstream politicians, the former president, the supreme court, laws that are passed or tried to pass.
Quite a few self declared centrist or independent thinkers spend so much time on what are fairly fringe views on the left. Then spend very little time on the (imo) outrageous brick the right does, both by the fringe and by people with real political power.
And this plays right into what I believe to be a political strategy of the right in the US. I believe that makes him useful for the right, for the republican party. And he seems perfectly happy being useful to them. He seems perfectly happy skirting around issues on the right.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
Who exactly has called Joe Rogan a transphobe and for what reasons?
Ignoring random statements by random people on twitter and such. People with at least some influence or power. People who actually give a reason for their views.
The guardian, for one https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/nov/14/transgender-mma-fighter-fallon-fox-joe-rogan
There has been loads of articles over the last few years.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
-Talking about Fallon Fox, a transgender woman: "You’re a fudging man. That’s a man, OK?"
-Saying that he wishes he could use the word "tranny", to her, about her. And that she could laugh it off.
-Talking about what I assume to be a trans woman: "I'm looking at a man with a dress".
-Describing the looks of a trans woman: "she's got a man's face"
Isn't this transphobia to you?
It's vile, mean brick and blatantly transphobic to me. No apology. Not cancelled. No consequences. Just complaints about not being able to "make jokes", "say anything these days".
Please help me understand how this isn't transphobic to you. I cannot wrap my head around thinking this isn't transphobic or defending Rogan against claims of transhobia based on this.
No it isn't if you read the full context of what he said, rather than the little snippets the guardian used.
He was saying that it was a 30 year old man that transitioned. That had the skeletal structure and bone density of a man. For all intents and purpose when fighting a woman it is a man. With a mans face (harder to damage). The woman "she" was fighting got abosolutely battered, including a fractured skull. She said that she had never fought anyone with strength like it.
But yes lets ignore the fact that women are getting their skulls fractured and focus on joe rogan cause he used the word tranny. If you can't understand how fudged that is, i don't know what to say.