Anybody like watching Jordan Peterson talks on YouTube?

[waived]

The pub I used to frequent had a notice up saying "no football, no politics, no religion"
Guaranteed to start a fight in any pub here.

There's also another saying that goes something like "When all social relations are governed by politics all social relations are inherently political."

 

[LoNatural]

Some good ol' traditional wisdom

 

[Othermind]

Okay. True capitalism would be what we experience currently within capitalism. It is a material and logical reality that has been constructed by humans. it isn't an abstract theory. It is actively manged by States as a global economy. It is most certainly 'full capitalism' at the moment. What it is now isn't different than its praxis, there was no mistake or error, it has always required poverty and ruination in order to function because it takes the wealth of all human activity and places it into the hands of private ownership. You can find capitalism's origins and explain events, behavior, and patterns within it. Its functioning matches its proposal.

That isn't the same situation with socialism and communism historically. What you will note is periods of communist activity getting either crushed by external forces actively seeking to do so (intentionally), or a regression back into activity that mirrors the world it seeks to destroy, also essentially being crushed by external forces albeit in this case economic and organizational. These weren't instances of functioning communism or socialism they were a part of the world we still have today and are in fact a way in which communist activity is actively destroyed. The reasons for the latter are varied but one would be those seeking state power do so for reasons other than to then relinquish it later on, although as I'll mention in a minute that is a very dated and terse description and socialism and communism are not really the same thing at all so this can get lengthy and complicated pretty quick. This is what I meant in response to off the cuff remarks about 'things never worked' and 'they are bad too'.

Most important is the number of ordinary people who we can classify as being Black and Red libertarians, past and present, who actively fought against these regressions, not for Socialism or Communism but as communist activity. The people being destroyed by what amounts to state politicos weren't inherently servient to the previous order.

And shit I could not resist making an edit to comment on this one



The economic system and the states of whatever flavor that govern it (or vice versa) have come close to destroying an entire planet with no sign of stopping. This includes altering the access to food supply or production for millions of people as their geographically specific climate changes among other things.




It isn't always although you're showing your hand and if it is a global economic system that oh nevermind.

Why do you bother? It's clear he's just some kid who's been binge watching libertarian propaganda from his parasocial Youtube friends and now gets off on regurgitating it wherever he goes to "destroy the leftist cucks" or whatever their go to insult is nowadays.
I mean, props for the effort post but it's just pearls before the swine imo.

 

[waived]

It felt better to make 2 posts with about 5 paragraphs and leave than drawing it out over 5 pages like unhappy cats occupying the same sofa.

 

[Misanthrope]

Look, I mean no offense because you seem a nice enough guy.
However your post is a giant solipsistic ouroboros of eternally recurring, unfalsifiable skepticism that is simply impossible to respond to.

No offence taken. I am entirely used to allusions being made as a means to not address a single exploratory question, or point raised, or attempt at evidence presented. That is your prerogative. It is an odd stance to take though as you are the one who quoted me in the first place.

I am going to dismantle your allusions however in the interests of personal accuracy.

your post is solipsistic

I mention in my post that minds outside my own exist and hold their own views, as well as link to studies that attempt to objectively study the mind as if they exist in a meaningful manner. All of which are pretty much the opposite of Solipsism. I also do not ascribe to Solipsism personally, but find the views within it enjoyable to explore.

unfalsifiable skepticism

Interesting, well point out my response that behaves like an invisible dragon that cannot be observed and I will do my best to address the falsifiability issues you raise.

 

[Othermind]

That is a subjective opinion, good is also subjective.

 

[LoNatural]

Look, I mean no offense because you seem a nice enough guy.
However your post is a giant solipsistic ouroboros of eternally recurring, unfalsifiable skepticism that is simply impossible to respond to.

don't be so priggish and show us what do you propose

 

[Othermind]

don't be so priggish and show us what do you propose

About what? Free speech?

 

[RainAndSadness]

I don't understand how people can even take him seriously anymore in 2019. He has many regressive views on many social issues, especially in religion related topics and he shouldn't have the title intellectual. He is a religious preacher who became famous with lies about the c-16 bill, that's it.

 

[Dor]

I wish that guy would have been educating me growing up lol! I can't imagine how different I may have turned out. I would hope that I would have not went down same route had I been educated better morally in the formative years.

I'm too stupid understand his message. But I'm skeptical, as I am of everyone's beliefs. Isn't he insistent on that god exists and religion is real or something? That's not logical, you can't possibly know, Sure existence is bizarre, and a equally bizarre solution would be a "god" of one particular religion. Sorry if I offend any religious people.

 

[LoNatural]

About what? Free speech?

yeah

 

[ReadyasEver]

My wife handed a research journal years ago. It was fascinating and disputed vehemently. Basically, a bunch of MD neuroscientists found a lot of evidence that most of unconsciousness guidance system so to speak was in place as all our brain development was complete, roughly 9 to 13 years old. They found that the environment you were raised in as well as strong genetic component of wiring pretty much decided everything by this age. Interesting, and a topic of great debate.

 

[Final Escape]

My wife handed a research journal years ago. It was fascinating and disputed vehemently. Basically, a bunch of MD neuroscientists found a lot of evidence that most of unconsciousness guidance system so to speak was in place as all our brain development was complete, roughly 9 to 13 years old. They found that the environment you were raised in as well as strong genetic component of wiring pretty much decided everything by this age. Interesting, and a topic of great debate.

So in other words you are screwed in life if enough things went wrong in those formative years, unless it's identified early enough and u get intense therapy to at least mitigate the damage of terrible early environment. I was fucked from the start :(" I'm pretty suicidal today so if this sounds a bit defeatist lol!

 

[Pulpit2018]

My wife handed a research journal years ago. It was fascinating and disputed vehemently. Basically, a bunch of MD neuroscientists found a lot of evidence that most of unconsciousness guidance system so to speak was in place as all our brain development was complete, roughly 9 to 13 years old. They found that the environment you were raised in as well as strong genetic component of wiring pretty much decided everything by this age. Interesting, and a topic of great debate.

I am sorry i dont buy that.There is no way you are a complete person by 13.Hillarious.
People change A LOT since then.

 

[RainAndSadness]

I am sorry i dont buy that.There is no way you are a complete person by 13.Hillarious.
People change A LOT since then.

That's true, the human brain is fully developed at 25 years I think.

 

[Final Escape]

I'm too stupid understand his message. But I'm skeptical, as I am of everyone's beliefs. Isn't he insistent on that god exists and religion is real or something? That's not logical, you can't possibly know, Sure existence is bizarre, and a equally bizarre solution would be a "god" of one particular religion. Sorry if I offend any religious people.

I only suspect that God exists because I've learned enough not only from the lectures but also my personal experiences tell me there is at the very least absolute moral right and wrong. If you deviate too far from a virtuous life, you will suffer guaranteed. We were designed to do positive meaningful things that go beyond instant self gratification Things that give meaning aren't necessarily easy to aquire or achieve, and that's the whole point. You are going to be challenged and life is mostly suffering that's why u need to have a hedge against it that gives u enuf meaning to offset some of the tragedy. Anyway, this still doesn't fix the damage that I've incurred as a result of not living right or aspiring towards virtue. I'm so broken down by this point I don't care if there is a god anymore. Something that also makes it difficult in this life is that the state tries to be our god. Life is hard enough without the state playing god with our lives.

 

[Othermind]

yeah

It's a nebulous and self-contradicting concept that can never be applied (nor should it be desirable). Certain forms of speech naturally suppress others, and communities of discourse coalesce and will inevitably seize control of major platforms that are hostile to certain opinions and bully away whoever holds them.
There's also quite a bit of complicated linguistic theory that goes into this that I don't have the time to explain in detail, just google "speech-act" to get an idea. Speech is never just speech, it has a tangible effects on reality and other people's behaviour, ergo the right to speak without a platform and an audience is tantamount to the right to yell in an empty room. If you follow this logic, freedom of speech must include the right to a platform for all kind of opinions, even the ones that put people's actual life in peril if they're broadcast to a substantial amount of susceptible individuals (remember the speech-act thing?). However this is all pointless as all of this is regulated by political and private power who only allow discussion of topics that do not pose a threat to them. (i.e an online social network not disallowing content that might put off investors)

 

[RainAndSadness]

there is at the very least absolute moral right and wrong.

That's a very strong claim which requires very strong evidence. How do you know what's right and wrong? Why do you know? If you speak in absolute terms, that must imply you have access to empirical data supporting such a statement, right? Otherwise you're not different than all the religious preachers who claim they have reached moral enlightenment and say homosexuality is a sin. And that's hilarious.

 

[Johnnythefox]

And round two has commenced on this seemingly never ending debate about the merits of Jordan, Peters son.
New contenders have entered the arena, but who will deal the knock out blow.
Stay tuned! Here's Tom with the weather.

 

[Johnnythefox]

 

[LoNatural]

It's a nebulous and self-contradicting concept that can never be applied (nor should it be desirable). Certain forms of speech naturally suppress others, and communities of discourse coalesce and will inevitably seize control of major platforms that are hostile to certain opinions and bully away whoever holds them.
There's also quite a bit of complicated linguistic theory that goes into this that I don't have the time to explain in detail, just google "speech-act" to get an idea. However, spich only allows discussion of things that do not directly pose a realistic threat to it. Speech is never just speech, it has a tangible effects on reality and other people's behaviour, ergo the right to speak without a platform and an audience is tantamount to the right to yell in an empty room. If you follow this logic, freedom of speech must include the right to a platform for all kind of opinions, even the ones that put people's actual life in peril if they're broadcast to a substantial amount of people (remember the speech-act thing?).However this is all pointless as all of this is regulated by political and private power which only allows discussion of things that do not directly pose a realistic threat to it.

I agree, of course it's a political war. I'm not an alt righter or anything like that, but I like to explore the darker side of existance and the left is nowadays the largest threat to these darker aspects of life to be developed. I've seen how they have tried to manipulate history to make it look more politically correct at school. I've seen how they want us to stop laughing at "offensive" humor. The ridiculous amount of virtue signaling and shaming...

The "pro free speech" faction is the only one that stands up against this crap, and I'll be happy if they end up winning.

 

[MsM3talGamer]

View attachment 5454

Where's Chinaski? We need our favourite heavyweight here.

 

[Nanami]

I appreciate you practicing your announcer voice, @Johnnythefox, however I'd prefer the discussion to go in a way where no one feels pitted against someone else, throws out punches or gets attacked in general.

 

[Johnnythefox]

Where's Chinaski? We need our favourite heavyweight here.

Chinaski is down the gym sparring!

 

[Misanthrope]

That is a subjective opinion, good is also subjective.

The context of that statement though was in direct response to your own invisible dragon. As a foundation of your reasoning you cited the concept of good. With an appeal to ditch shit opinion. I simply pursued that. Attempting to get you to either define it in relation to your argument or abandon it for something else perhaps more compelling. You did neither intially. Until just recently.

The value in diversity of opinion is that opinions are often subjective, but you can support those opinions with how you arrive at your personal reasoning. As well as also present any existing evidence that then supports it. This can be quite illuminating as diverse opinion may show you something you don't even know about or had not considered. That is what good discourse should look like, it is even better when it can be done in a polite manner.

It is why I appreciate your recent explanation and pointing out speech act theory. I will probably peruse that when I don't feel so sick.

Peace.

 

[Pulpit2018]

It's a nebulous and self-contradicting concept that can never be applied (nor should it be desirable). Certain forms of speech naturally suppress others, and communities of discourse coalesce and will inevitably seize control of major platforms that are hostile to certain opinions and bully away whoever holds them.
There's also quite a bit of complicated linguistic theory that goes into this that I don't have the time to explain in detail, just google "speech-act" to get an idea. However, spich only allows discussion of things that do not directly pose a realistic threat to it. Speech is never just speech, it has a tangible effects on reality and other people's behaviour, ergo the right to speak without a platform and an audience is tantamount to the right to yell in an empty room. If you follow this logic, freedom of speech must include the right to a platform for all kind of opinions, even the ones that put people's actual life in peril if they're broadcast to a substantial amount of susceptible individuals (remember the speech-act thing?). However this is all pointless as all of this is regulated by political and private power who only allow discussion of topics that do not pose a threat to them. (i.e an online social network not disallowing content that might put off investors)

I dont quite get this.So because it is difficult to apply or corporations dont like it,we should abandon it.
And yes communities take over platforms and push others out.Thats why we need it!
Thats what happens to reddit for instance all the time.
Free speech might not apply to private entities(although thats not absolute.For instance google cannot banish your videos from youtube without any justification.It acts as content delivery at some areas,so it cannot censor at will),but the point is in the public sphere it is vital.

And no,you cannot use it to put people in direct danger.Thats obvious.You cannot yell fire in crowded theaters.
Thats not hard distinction to make.
The only way to protect against a group taking over and pushing opinions out,is free speech.
That should not be debated.

I mean come on people.This is basic.Your right to expression should not be infringed upon.
Its like your right not to be assaulted.
Your view is like saying you "should be assaulted if you are a bad person".How do you define that?

There is a reason it is the first amendment.You cant have civilization without it.

 

[Johnnythefox]

I appreciate you practicing your announcer voice, @Johnnythefox, however I'd prefer the discussion to go in a way where no one feels pitted against someone else, throws out punches or gets attacked in general.

I wholeheartedly apologise.

 

[Nanami]

I wholeheartedly apologise.

Don't worry, nothing to apologize for, I just thought I could capitalize on that comment to remind people to keep the discussion civil :)

 

[waived]

I agree, of course it's a political war. I'm not an alt righter or anything like that, but I like to explore the darker side of existance and the left is nowadays the largest threat to these darker aspects of life to be developed. I've seen how they have tried to manipulate history to make it look more politically correct at school. I've seen how they want us to stop laughing at "offensive" humor. The ridiculous amount of virtue signaling and shaming...

The "pro free speech" faction is the only one that stands up against this crap, and I'll be happy if they end up winning.

The issue is that 'The Left' (which let's be honest is a catch all for anyone being brutalized at any particular time and taking exception to it) doesn't have material agency in the current world. A world which has looked like and looks increasingly like depraved barbarism hence an apparent resurgence of people pushing back against what destroys them. We can see this throughout world history, even within both of our life times as it stands now. So you have people in positions of relative privilege, or sometimes not but trolling a line against their self interest regardless, who feel like their 'free speech' is being disallowed while not realizing the monolithic systems of control already backing up what they are saying. For you it may be about 'exploring darkness' which you can still do by all means let's be real but it can act as a rallying point to keep in place systems that cause others to suffer to say the least, like materially, like a rainbow of genocide and life not worth living.

Often times they do realize the systemic element of their free speech and just don't like the idea of having a group of people who were previously materially and socially placed under them, artificially of course, having a voice and basically saying yo hands off, and attempting to alter a system that has actually destroyed them for hundreds of years. Free speech as a phrase is flawed within these discussions in this light because 'free speech' is a trademark, it is a market place product, a legal term belonging to a social construct. it is issued to people and taken away from others. It is not synonymous with freedom when the dominant order, social or otherwise, that creates and maintains it has always had full control. I think that's the issue people have. They're not seeing groups of people they don't like utilizing 'free speech', although that angers some, they're seeing a disintegration and casting off of the concept all together to make room for actual freedom.

 

[Othermind]

I like to explore the darker side of existance and the left is nowadays the largest threat to these darker aspects of life

What are you even on about?

I will probably peruse that when I don't feel so sick.

Please don't.
These things always devolve into pedantic and pointless discussions about semantics and I really can't be bothered at the moment.