What's on your mind?

Currently viewing this thread:

BenKenobi said:
How does this even work with the modern left that is, at least in my understanding, also about making two thousands different labels to identify a person with, while at the same time fighting against for example religious communitarianism or national identity?
'lots of identities to be respected' type of leftism is more accommodating of national and religious identities, no? From my experience that kind of leftists in the west are much more inclusive of religious people whereas in Turkey the attitude of leftists will be 'yallah to saudi arabia'. But there seems to be some tension with nationalism, but it isn't based on being against collective identities per se.
 

Feragorn

Marquis
M&BWBNW
There's also the idea that tolerance of intolerance is self-defeating. If the expressions of religious communitarianism and nationalism are inherently exclusionary or supremacist, then they must be opposed since they are a danger to a free and fair society. The atheist SJW construction is basically a strawman, as you can pick almost any religion and find people who base leftist philosophies in them.
 

Fierce Headmaster

Hi! My name is Skippy.
Count
M&BWB
****ing Jesus Christ is the most communist person ever and all I can't understand how religious people end up right-leaning.

Calradianın Bilgesi said:
PETERSON: Sure. That’s no problem. The first thing is that their philosophy presumes that group identity is paramount. That’s the fundamental philosophy that drove the Soviet Union and Maoist China. And it’s the fundamental philosophy of the left-wing activists. It’s identity politics. It doesn’t matter who you are as an individual, it matters who you are in terms of your group identity.
How the **** can someone's mind work like this?
"The NRA has their own label and call themselves gun activists, therefore they are creating a group identity and are similar to Maoist China. Since they arm themselves, millions of deaths will come soon enough."


How can someone think trans activists are anywhere near totalitarianism when all we want is to not be mistreated and ****ed over everywhere
 
Calradianın Bilgesi said:
BenKenobi said:
How does this even work with the modern left that is, at least in my understanding, also about making two thousands different labels to identify a person with, while at the same time fighting against for example religious communitarianism or national identity?
'lots of identities to be respected' type of leftism is more accommodating of national and religious identities, no? From my experience that kind of leftists in the west are much more inclusive of religious people whereas in Turkey the attitude of leftists will be 'yallah to saudi arabia'. But there seems to be some tension with nationalism, but it isn't based on being against collective identities per se.
From the internet image of the modern left I have a feeling that these identities are okay only as long as you don't ascribe any normativity to them.
 

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Dancing to electro-pop like a robot since 1984
Subforum Moderator
M&BWBNWWF&SVC
worth bearing in mind that for the most part you only notice the crazier fringes online due to the nature of the internet.

That's not to say the ideas don't exist,though.
 

Jhessail

Panzervixen
Grandmaster Knight
Peterson also wants to send women back to kitchen and to ensure we're barefoot and pregnant.

JACVBHINDS // 寒心420? said:
he skirts around his own definitions and uses metaphors and vapid truisms to avoid being pinned down, while still appealing to the reactionaries and self-help types who form the majority of his fanbase. He's just one big dogwhistle with no coherent core.
It also makes it simple for his fans to make videos on Youtube like "PETERSON DESTROYS SJW" based on a 5-minute incomprehensible shouting match on the courtyard of some college and to venerate him like some sort of Messianic intellectual giant, which he isn't. He's not going to stop though, because he is pulling in six-figure income from crowd-funding.
 

crodio

Marquis
PETERSON: I did compare them to Mao … I was comparing them to the left-wing totalitarians. And I do believe

they are left-wing totalitarians.

NEWMAN: Under Mao millions of people died!

PETERSON: Right!

NEWMAN: I mean there’s no comparison between Mao and a trans activist, is there?

PETERSON: Why not?

NEWMAN: Because trans activists aren’t killing millions of people!

PETERSON: The philosophy that’s guiding their utterances is the same philosophy.

NEWMAN: The consequences are …

PETERSON: Not yet!

NEWMAN: You’re saying that trans activists, …

PETERSON: No!

NEWMAN: Could leads to the deaths of millions of people.

PETERSON: No, I’m saying that the philosophy that drives their utterances is the same philosophy that already has driven us to the deaths of millions of people.

NEWMAN: Okay. Tell us how that philosophy is in any way comparable.

PETERSON: Sure. That’s no problem. The first thing is that their philosophy presumes that group identity is paramount. That’s the fundamental philosophy that drove the Soviet Union and Maoist China. And it’s the fundamental philosophy of the left-wing activists. It’s identity politics. It doesn’t matter who you are as an individual, it matters who you are in terms of your group identity.
I have to defend the Peterson here.  Even if I believe that his take is bull****, (namely the last entry of the dialog) I think this Newman guy is very naive. He has this silly anti intellectual stance of "mao is bad, why do you compare bad thing to thing I think is not bad!"
His attack on him is a lazy way to portray Peterson as a retarded right wing nut, which he is, but this critique doesn't amount to anything I believe
 
my point in quoting that bit was not to imply 'look how silly opinions he has' but rather to point out confusion created by claiming a. [the consequences are] not yet [the same], b. trans activists won't kill millions of people, c. trans activists have a philosophy that leads to the death of millions of people
 
Feragorn said:
There's also the idea that tolerance of intolerance is self-defeating. If the expressions of religious communitarianism and nationalism are inherently exclusionary or supremacist, then they must be opposed since they are a danger to a free and fair society. The atheist SJW construction is basically a strawman, as you can pick almost any religion and find people who base leftist philosophies in them.
If the point of your post is that we should not tolerate intolerance, then yes, however, there has to be some kind of a proportionality test. Your post, if taken as it is, rejects respecting difference; it is basically a one-right-answer moral crusader outlook.

Every normative statement is by definition exclusionary. "Little girls should be wearing skirts" must have issues with "little girls should be wearing trousers" or even "little girls can be wearing trousers." You cannot hold both beliefs at the same time. Depending on how strongly you feel about the issue, you take necessary measures, whether it is condescendingly agreeing to disagree with the other guy, campaigning for raising awareness on how great skirts are, or by criminalising trousers on little girls. But the point stands in that in all three cases that expression is definitely supremacist and depending on interpretation is also exclusionary. And now take some highly political question that people feel strongly about and suddenly you basically cannot state anything without the possibility of that position being interpreted as exclusionary and/or supremacist. So when "the left" uses the "intolerance of tolerance is self-defeating, thus intolerance is in certain situations okay" metarule against anything that they don't agree with and that can be labelled as originiating in religion or nationalism, it is nothing but a comedy to hide that it, after all, is just about politics and not about tolerance / intolerance.

In other words: a religious fundamentalist would wholeheartedly agree that you should oppose certain politics since they present a danger to a free and fair society.

If respect or tolerance are to be worth anything, they should not only mean letting other people to have beliefs that you agree with or that you don't care about, but primarily letting other people have beliefs that you don't agree with or that offend you. Otherwise, that tolerance is hardly a tolerance.
 

Fierce Headmaster

Hi! My name is Skippy.
Count
M&BWB
The problem comes when one acts upon said beliefs, either forcing little girls to wear skirts/trousers against their will or hurting/killing them for wearing skirts/trousers, whichever said one doesn't agree with. I interpret the tolerance argument this way.

Besides, we should work on the statement to be "normative" but at least open enough to fit human choice in it. Taking the same example, the norm could be "Little girls should be wearing something" with the opposite being "should be naked", which I'd claim anyone non-pedo would agree with.
 

Feragorn

Marquis
M&BWBNW
That's about it, yeah. Except I take issue with Ben's idea that recognizing the paradox of intolerance implies that any further action is illegitimate. Certain things can be described as "politics" and are fair game for debate and discussion. Certain other things can be masked as "politics" and yet can't be part of a good-faith discussion. For example, Dicky Spencer has made a sham of a career on white identitarianism. The justice or injustice of a white ethnostate seems like a thing which is political and can be debated, except when you ask about how such a concept would be enacted. Then the entire concept comes crashing down as based on racism and ethnic cleansing. However, it is a political question to consider the permissibility of such an expression of free speech.

Back to the "normative statements are exclusionary" thing. Descriptive statements like "most girls wear skirts" can be true or not true, but they don't on their own make a value judgement. Prescriptive statements like "girls should wear skirts" do seem to make a value judgement, although there may be a valid or invalid reason behind it. Then you need to consider the person's intentions, because otherwise there's no other way to evaluate the statement. Not to mention, somebody's explicit reasoning may be blind to implicit biases when making statements, which is why people tend to get defensive about being presented with concepts they haven't previously considered  The metarule, as you've put it, is still useful because you can exclude much of what is and isn't up for grabs and only focus on somebody's politics.
 
Feragorn said:
Except I take issue with Ben's idea that recognizing the paradox of intolerance implies that any further action is illegitimate. Certain things can be described as "politics" and are fair game for debate and discussion. Certain other things can be masked as "politics" and yet can't be part of a good-faith discussion.
Yes, this is what I wrote in the first sentence of that post.

Feragorn said:
The metarule, as you've put it, is still useful because you can exclude much of what is and isn't up for grabs and only focus on somebody's politics.
Yes, but... You really need to restrict yourself in its use because it can be a very dangerous thing. Saying "you should not keep saying these things because I don't agree" is very different to "you should not keep saying these things because they are dangerous to a free and fair society." This is what I meant when I said that "the internet left", for a lack of better word, fights against nationalism and religiousness - that they are a little too trigger happy with sticking the "danger to a free and fair society" on everything even remotely connected to certain religions or nationalism.
 

Feragorn

Marquis
M&BWBNW
We've hit the usual snag here, but I still don't think you have a good handle on the "internet left" especially as it compares to an "internet right", which seems to mirror the dangers you attribute to it.
 
i genuinely haven't seen any anti-religious left in my campus. it has a motivation as well since people want to be more inclusive of LGBTQ+ catholics or other religious disadvantageds . But opposing abortion or saying gay sex is sin etc. will probably be frowned upon.
 

Densetsu

Age of Empires II
Marquis
Age of Empires II: The Densetsu said:
Cpt. Nemo said:
Actually pretty cool Denny. 0/10 not enough tintin

Tintin sux. 膣のおなら 膣のおなら 膣のおなら
Howard P. Lovecraft said:
wow
I want more.

I did another one. These are so addictive.

yvo7hJG.png



 

Shatari

Marquis
M&B
One of the biggest woes to owning Great Pyrenees is vet visits; they hate car rides, they hate being separated from their goats, and they don't like strangers. I'd like to have a vet just do a farm visit, but you have to pay extra for that. I'm strongly debating taking a two day course on how to give Rabies shots myself, which would really simplify things, but it means eating up two entire work days (back to back, no less) since they don't offer the course any near here. I hate having to choose between time and money, because I never have enough of either.
 

Antonis

Marquis
WBWF&SVCNW
Age of Empires II: The Densetsu said:
I did another one. These are so addictive.

yvo7hJG.png

Very nice! If I can make a suggestion(and I don't know if it is feasible with MS paint), many woodblock prints that feature people(mostly women) you can see strands of hair, separate and almost glistening -I think it is a technique. Would it be doable with white on black in ms paint? That's what I mean:
69f4555dea0a42d185438902404f4ce5.jpg
    or   
f17311816602bf08becdd7fe53e6ed5f.jpg
 
Top Bottom