The All Things Political Topic - A conservative is someone who makes no changes and consults his grandmother when in doubt

[BruceVC]

27 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

This conversation probably isn't worth continuing, but let me just point out that you are now making a completely different argument from the one you made before. Previously, you were arguing that his books are good because they are popular and my criticism of them isn't merited because of that. It's funny how quickly and effortlessly you just change what you're saying.

No my point was his books are popular because they resonate with people and it doesnt matter if you think they "   good  "  or not. Thats  not why people like them  

My point hasnt changed 

[Gfted1]

6 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

How is this relevant to any of this? I mean, neither Bruce nor I have said anything to this effect.

Its just that your completely subjective opinion on what constitutes "good" reminds me of the saying "its not whether you win or lose, its how you play the game". ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the time, its uttered by the loser / person that doesnt like <x>.

[Gromnir]

is it possible a post from the star trek mirror universe slipped over to this side? then again, this don't seem out of character for 2023 trump, many o' his maga adherents, and a few obsidian board posters.  near as bad, many people will read and just shrug off the fact that the former US President, likely gop nominee for the Presidency and possible future President just suggested he should be able to do crimes while in office with no possible future repercussions.

trump also has a curious notion 'bout cop legal responsibility.

gerald ford took considerable heat for pardoning nixon.  sucker.

as an aside, the original post from trump were time stamped at 2:00 am. 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited January 18 by Gromnir

[Pidesco]

7 hours ago, BruceVC said:

I have to disagree, Peterson has written several books that have become best sellers and they helped  and inspired  millions  of people world wide. So outside of what you quoted his ability to help many people through his writing is irrefutable 

Of course you dont have to think he is an effective writer  because you entitled to your opinion but  his books sales dispute that as  an overall real criticism.  Its like  you  saying you think George RR Martin is a bad writer,  the fanbase and sales  evidence of his works dispute that 

And then Peterson seems to get lots  of criticism or praise  because of his political and ideological views, I agree with much of what he says but not around other things.  I dont  follow or watch  much of his latest podcasts  or videos about how Western countries arent free  or  his views on religion and similar topics but he is someone who I rate based on the specific topic.  I dont automatically agree with him or disagree with him just because he is saying it 

But I respect his intellectualism and how he is able to debate, he is a very formidable debater because he is so well  informed about history and he is able to articulate his point convincingly in most debates 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is hilarious.

Here's a factual depiction of someone trying to find Peterson's intellectualism:

[Bartimaeus]

Am I thinking of somebody else, or is Peterson that self-help incel who thinks men should own women? I'm pretty sure I have a distant cousin who was trying to shill him to me one time at a big family gathering some years ago, but said cousin didn't realize that them being a Trumper meant I already thought they were an unserious person.

4 hours ago, Gromnir said:

is it possible a post from the star trek mirror universe slipped over to this side? then again, this don't seem out of character for 2023 trump, many o' his maga adherents, and a few obsidian board posters.  near as bad, many people will read and just shrug off the fact that the former US President, likely gop nominee for the Presidency and possible future President just suggested he should be able to do crimes while in office with no possible future repercussions.

trump also has a curious notion 'bout cop legal responsibility.

gerald ford took considerable heat for pardoning nixon.  sucker.

as an aside, the original post from trump were time stamped at 2:00 am. 

HA! Good Fun!

I think people are probably largely split into one of two camps here:

1. Well, duh, we already knew he wanted to be a king.
2. Well, duh, we already want him to be a king.

Pretty easy to shrug off either way, really. Of course, if the Supreme Court were to accept that reasoning, I do believe it would mean Biden could just brutally massacre the Supreme Court without it being illegal - not to mention Trump or anyone else the Republican party might put up - so I think it's in everyone's best interests that they don't do that.

[Malcador]

17 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

Am I thinking of somebody else, or is Peterson that self-help incel who thinks men should own women?

That's Andrew Tate, I think.

[Pidesco]

3 minutes ago, Malcador said:

That's Andrew Tate, I think.

Peterson also falls under that description. He's just less explicit about it.

[Elerond]

39 minutes ago, Malcador said:

That's Andrew Tate, I think.

It is not always easy to say which of them has said something if you don't see author of the comment

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html
 

Quote

Most of his ideas stem from a gnawing anxiety around gender. “The masculine spirit is under assault,” he told me. “It’s obvious.”

In Mr. Peterson’s world, order is masculine. Chaos is feminine. And if an overdose of femininity is our new poison, Mr. Peterson knows the cure. Hence his new book’s subtitle: “An Antidote to Chaos.”

“We have to rediscover the eternal values and then live them out,” he says.

Mr. Peterson, 55, a University of Toronto psychology professor turned YouTube philosopher turned mystical father figure, has emerged as an influential thought leader. The messages he delivers range from hoary self-help empowerment talk (clean your room, stand up straight) to the more retrograde and political (a society run as a patriarchy makes sense and stems mostly from men’s competence; the notion of white privilege is a farce ). He is the stately looking, pedigreed voice for a group of culture warriors who are working diligently to undermine mainstream and liberal efforts to promote equality. 

 

[majestic]

1 hour ago, Bartimaeus said:

Am I thinking of somebody else, or is Peterson that self-help incel who thinks men should own women?

Well, you got that wrong, Jordan Peterson is the guy who DESTROYS leftists by telling them crustaceans have a strict hierarchy and then proceeding to unironically talk about post-modern neo-marxism, which most likely sounds highly intellectual to his fanbase, but is completely meaningless. Postmodernism's defining feature is the rejection of metanarratives like Marxism as fundamentally flawed. His fabled debating skills, by far and large, boil down to raising strawmen arguments combined with a factually true statement in an attempt to goad the other party into looking stupid or giving him an opening where he can claim that they are misrepresenting what he said without ever really specifying what it is exactly he said.

Which is pretty much what he did in his BBC interview, for instance, where he's argued that "the" Left has this idea that all our societal hierarchies are the result of Western patriarchy, but lobsters also have hierarchies and they predate Western civilization. The strawman here being that "the left" of course never argued against all hierarchies arising from the oppressive patriachy. It is, however, fairly problematic to respond to, you can either argue against a fundamentally correct statement ("lobsters have hierarchies"), which will make you look silly, or you can follow his implication and debate that, to which he can just reply that this is a misinterpretation of what he said.

Which is pretty much what happened, as the interviewer's response was asking him whether he believes we should organize our society along the lines of lobsters. No, of course not. Silly interviewer. The reactionary core of his implication still stands, of course, and his fanbase gobbles it up like candy. Like him or not, he certainly knows what he is doing, which is pandering to his audience, not engaging in meaningful, intellectual debates.

Edited January 18 by majestic

[Bartimaeus]

Sounds like he's another great example of Brandolini's Law in action.

[Gfted1]

58 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

...Brandolini's Law...

Huh, that was coined in 2013. Interesting.

[Malcador]

1 hour ago, Elerond said:

It is not always easy to say which of them has said something if you don't see author of the comment

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html
 

 

Interesting. Haven't really followed him much, only exposure has been retards online extolling his, uh, teachings.   Well that and cleaning your room but I was already inspired to do that regularly by Admiral McRaven and thorough beatings instruction from parents.

[BruceVC]

7 hours ago, majestic said:

Well, you got that wrong, Jordan Peterson is the guy who DESTROYS leftists by telling them crustaceans have a strict hierarchy and then proceeding to unironically talk about post-modern neo-marxism, which most likely sounds highly intellectual to his fanbase, but is completely meaningless. Postmodernism's defining feature is the rejection of metanarratives like Marxism as fundamentally flawed. His fabled debating skills, by far and large, boil down to raising strawmen arguments combined with a factually true statement in an attempt to goad the other party into looking stupid or giving him an opening where he can claim that they are misrepresenting what he said without ever really specifying what it is exactly he said.

Which is pretty much what he did in his BBC interview, for instance, where he's argued that "the" Left has this idea that all our societal hierarchies are the result of Western patriarchy, but lobsters also have hierarchies and they predate Western civilization. The strawman here being that "the left" of course never argued against all hierarchies arising from the oppressive patriachy. It is, however, fairly problematic to respond to, you can either argue against a fundamentally correct statement ("lobsters have hierarchies"), which will make you look silly, or you can follow his implication and debate that, to which he can just reply that this is a misinterpretation of what he said.

Which is pretty much what happened, as the interviewer's response was asking him whether he believes we should organize our society along the lines of lobsters. No, of course not. Silly interviewer. The reactionary core of his implication still stands, of course, and his fanbase gobbles it up like candy. Like him or not, he certainly knows what he is doing, which is pandering to his audience, not engaging in meaningful, intellectual debates.

But dont buy in and repeat the whole  culture wars  garbage,  he doesn't destroy leftists.  This is one of the issue  with these types  of debates nowadays,  its how  people frame them or understand them. If you go to   Youtube thats how many people on the left and right title videos

You find videos titled  " Peterson destroy woke ideology "  or " racist Peterson caught out " and its cringe because you need to watch the video and decide for  yourself who made  the more convincing argument 

He  doesnt  destroy leftists but he disputes and debates people or he will  give an opinion on something.  No one gets destroyed  in a   debate because  its about our own reflections on what  is a better point  raised  

And then the lobster story is one chapter\rule in the book and its only part  of the  chapter but people obsess about that as if its what the whole  book  is about, what about the other 11 rules?  Surly  if we want to have an  honest objective view about any  book then we should comment on its entirety ?

 

 

 

[uuuhhii]

isn't this just a variation of don't judge the game until played 100 hours

garbage is garbage

it is not hard to tell

[Gromnir]

9 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

I think people are probably largely split into one of two camps here:

1. Well, duh, we already knew he wanted to be a king.
2. Well, duh, we already want him to be a king.

Pretty easy to shrug off either way, really. Of course, if the Supreme Court were to accept that reasoning, I do believe it would mean Biden could just brutally massacre the Supreme Court without it being illegal - not to mention Trump or anyone else the Republican party might put up - so I think it's in everyone's best interests that they don't do that.

am realizing some hyperbole is being indulged in your response.  after all, and is indeed ironic, most maga folks believe trump is their last best hope for a champion who will fight for them against tyranny, and the laundry list o' hobgoblins trump convinced them they is needing to fear-- illegal immigrants, globalists, mail-in voting, windmills, etc. sure, they believe trump needs to be strong to take on the deep state and the corrupt system, so they is ok with trump breaking norms, but maga unironic sees itself and trump as the last gasp hope for american democracy.  

is kinda a shame that many o' the trump voters disappeared from this board following the election and insurrection, 'cause am certain they would pushback on your simple (and slight tongue-in-cheek) dichotomy.

that said, imagine same absolute immunity statement by trump in 2015, during his first campaign, and even during the first couple years o' his Presidency.  of course maga folks woulda' made excuses for trump's embrace o' dictatorship, or they woulda' suggested he were joking, but the reaction from maga folks to the above tweet would not have been same even in 2018... and libs also woulda' been vocal  outraged by such a statement in 2018. today? a collective sigh from the left and a hearty cheer from the faithful. 

Gromnir couldn't figure out why so many libs shrugged off the trump muslim ban promise in 2015, and has been a whole lotta shrug moments since then. it took hundreds o' thousands o' unnecessary US covid deaths, and trump's arguable criminal mishandling o' the pandemic to convince democrats and left-leaning independents to vote for an uninspiring biden -harris ticket in 2020. does @Bartimaeusfeel confident that the above tweet, and so many others similar signs that trump is looking to shatter whatever illusions people got left that US republican democracy will prevent 45 from doing the previous unthinkable, and convince enough people to vote against him in 2024? how many will just shrug?

am genuine baffled by how easy post ww2 US norms has been subverted since 2015.  a c-list tv huckster selling fear and grievance to working class whites evoked shrugs and maybe even mild laughter from libs in 2015.  how many collective shrugs led to this point, 'cause recall that while trump beat clinton, the 2016 election saw extreme low voter turnout and exit polls showed that many who voted for trump did so not 'cause they liked him but 'cause clinton were such a terrible alternative. the don't blame me, i voted for kodos joke were funny in 2015? the truth is most libs didn't bother to vote for kodos, so kang didn't need many votes to win. pretend it didn't really matter if clinton or trump were possible 'cause people shrugged at muslim ban,  pu$$y grab, attacks on gold star families, etc. 

the old quote attributed to ben franklin feels more apt today than at anytime since the civil war. the thing is, americans were a smidge more engaged in 1787 and 1861... recognizing how only the opinions o' white and male americans mattered at the time.

HA! Good Fun!

[uuuhhii]

13 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

am realizing some hyperbole is being indulged in your response.  after all, and is indeed ironic, most maga folks believe trump is their last best hope for a champion who will fight for them against tyranny, and the laundry list o' hobgoblins trump convinced them they is needing to fear-- illegal immigrants, globalists, mail-in voting, windmills, etc. sure, they believe trump needs to be strong to take on the deep state and the corrupt system, so they is ok with trump breaking norms, but maga unironic sees itself and trump as the last gasp hope for american democracy.  

is kinda a shame that many o' the trump voters disappeared from this board following the election and insurrection, 'cause am certain they would pushback on your simple (and slight tongue-in-cheek) dichotomy.

that said, imagine same absolute immunity statement by trump in 2015, during his first campaign, and even during the first couple years o' his Presidency.  of course maga folks woulda' made excuses for trump's embrace o' dictatorship, or they woulda' suggested he were joking, but the reaction from maga folks to the above tweet would not have been same even in 2018... and libs also woulda' been vocal  outraged by such a statement in 2018. today? a collective sigh from the left and a hearty cheer from the faithful. 

Gromnir couldn't figure out why so many libs shrugged off the trump muslim ban promise in 2015, and has been a whole lotta shrug moments since then. it took hundreds o' thousands o' unnecessary US covid deaths, and trump's arguable criminal mishandling o' the pandemic to convince democrats and left-leaning independents to vote for an uninspiring biden -harris ticket in 2020. does @Bartimaeusfeel confident that the above tweet, and so many others similar signs that trump is looking to shatter whatever illusions people got left that US republican democracy will prevent 45 from doing the previous unthinkable, and convince enough people to vote against him in 2024? how many will just shrug?

am genuine baffled by how easy post ww2 US norms has been subverted since 2015.  a c-list tv huckster selling fear and grievance to working class whites evoked shrugs and maybe even mild laughter from libs in 2015.  how many collective shrugs led to this point, 'cause recall that while trump beat clinton, the 2016 election saw extreme low voter turnout and exit polls showed that many who voted for trump did so not 'cause they liked him but 'cause clinton were such a terrible alternative. the don't blame me, i voted for kodos joke were funny in 2015? the truth is most libs didn't bother to vote for kodos, so kang didn't need many votes to win. pretend it didn't really matter if clinton or trump were possible 'cause people shrugged at muslim ban,  pu$$y grab, attacks on gold star families, etc. 

the old quote attributed to ben franklin feels more apt today than at anytime since the civil war. the thing is, americans were a smidge more engaged in 1787 and 1861... recognizing how only the opinions o' white and male americans mattered at the time.

HA! Good Fun!

democracy for maga and no one else

there is interview of maga that ask them would they prefer dictator trump

answer are yes over other elected president and that usa is already dictatorship so it doesn't matter

[Gromnir]

gonna post here 'cause is less football... but not politics either. whatever. if mods move the post, am not gonna complain.

HA! Good Fun!

[Amentep]

On 1/18/2024 at 6:03 AM, xzar_monty said:

This argument makes no sense whatsoever, and there is probably a name for precisely this fallacy in the art of rhetoric. Simply put: the success or lack thereof of something is absolutely no indication of the quality or lack of quality of the thing in question. They exist in completely different realms.

Ad Populum innit?  "Appeal to the Public" - implying that something that is popular is right/good/best.

[BruceVC]

4 hours ago, uuuhhii said:

isn't this just a variation of don't judge the game until played 100 hours

garbage is garbage

it is not hard to tell

No thats not  the same example, you can have an  opinion of  a game after 3-4 hours because thats normally enough time to understand its mechanics which is repeated generally throughout the game. And you can  definitely rage quit a  game because of its mechanics,  you dont need 100 hours  of being exposed to the same fundamental problem to know you dont like it 

But when we  want to have an objective opinion on  a book then you should at least read  it or  not think  the  message of the book is about 1 point discussed in 1 chapter

And that applies to   most things in life  and this often applies  to  people like Peterson,  I have no issue with people who dont like him or  dont  agree  with him.  Thats your  opinion and you entitled  to it but you must have a valid reason for not liking and it has to a legitimate.  So for example thinking Peterson " destroys Feminists\Liberals\wokeness  " because of how SM comments often frame his views  is not a legitimate reason.  Because  thats not what he does and how he  makes his points in debates,  at least  not the ones I  have seen.    And  I  have watched about 18-20  of his debates 

 

 

 

[majestic]

Bruce, really, I have no idea how you got it into your head that I was talking about a chapter of his self-help book. I was referencing an interview he did with the BBC, and said so. At any rate, the self-help book, which I only know the chapter titles of thanks to you posting about them, neatly illustrates the difference between reactionary right wing elements and regressive left wing elements: one side tells you what to do, the other tells you what not to do.

Edited January 19 by majestic

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

53 minutes ago, majestic said:

Bruce, really, I have no idea how you got it into your head that I was talking about a chapter of his self-help book.

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, majestic said:

Bruce, really, I have no idea how you got it into your head that I was talking about a chapter of his self-help book. I was referencing an interview he did with the BBC, and said so. At any rate, the self-help book, which I only know the chapter titles of thanks to you posting about them, neatly illustrates the difference between reactionary right wing elements and regressive left wing elements: one side tells you what to do, the other tells you what not to do.

Yes I read that  but the lobster story comes from  the book  and  there have been specific people who questioned  this but its because its  from  the book ...the 2 are  connected  

I was just pointing out this is  a type of  criticism the book gets  and it becomes a focus 

[HoonDing]

There's no one I'd trust more with "absolute immunity" than a racist, rapist, treasonous conman.

[uuuhhii]

30 minutes ago, HoonDing said:

There's no one I'd trust more with "absolute immunity" than a racist, rapist, treasonous conman.

that sound like founder of most nation throughout history

[Bartimaeus]

15 hours ago, Gromnir said:

does @Bartimaeusfeel confident that the above tweet, and so many others similar signs that trump is looking to shatter whatever illusions people got left that US republican democracy will prevent 45 from doing the previous unthinkable, and convince enough people to vote against him in 2024? how many will just shrug?

Oh no, I'm not confident about anything at all. I think I was the one that immediately said after the results of the 2020 became clear that we would be doing this all over again in 2024, even while others danced on Trump's grave. I already thought he was a Hitler-esque demagogue leading up to the 2016 election - though that wasn't quite accurate at that time, as he turned out to be such a simple-minded attention seeker that didn't have basically any actual values or convictions, and he just wanted to get his way and be loved in the process. In another universe, Trump's need for pure and unadulterated adoration could've lead to him directing his energies towards doing actually great things...but uh, obviously, that did not even remotely happen, and hell hath no fury like a man-child scorned: losing the 2020 election and his ongoing legal jeopardy has left Trump feeling scorned in a bad way, and I think anyone not taking it seriously must be a rather silly person. It took the utter bungling of Covid for him to just barely not win re-election in the first place, and people seem to always forget that Biden won the 2020 election by what was effectively 30,000 votes throughout a few key battleground states. Our institutions, our norms, our traditions, our laws, and our society were all pushed to the brink under his disastrous and corrupt presidency...and while it's a credit to them that they didn't completely fail (though they did certainly weaken), our country is only as strong as we make it, and electing people whose only interest is in breaking it will certainly bear poisonous fruits sooner rather than later.

My glib comment was more a reflection of just...voters either love him and actively support his desire to become a king (or whatever they think unlimited power and what he would do with it would make him), or voters fear and despise him so Trump saying the quiet part out loud doesn't feel even mildly surprising at this point, no matter how disconcerting it may be. Well, there is one other camp I didn't mention: the people who can't be motivated to care or vote no matter what, but they aren't really worth talking about at this point, since it's pretty clear they'll never see past the length of their nose. Maybe we'd finally start getting through to them if they started getting those noses punched in by reality...but probably not.

Edited January 20 by Bartimaeus