I'm mostly annoyed by his overuse of lobster analogies.
'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.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?
How the **** can someone's mind work like this?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.
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.Calradianın Bilgesi said:'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.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?
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.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.
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!"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.
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.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.
Yes, this is what I wrote in the first sentence of that post.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, 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 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.
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.
Age of Empires II: The Densetsu said:I did another one. These are so addictive.