If Mort Divine ruled the world

[rms]

something less serious, this is so fucking catty

 

[CiG]

Muh right not to be offended though.

 

[Dak]

In other news, kind of a mixed bag here.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-diz...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

I would agree with Knutti by default. I do think it's interesting that people make fun of chemtrail conspiracy theorists, when stratospheric aerosols themselves are not scifi, and they are increasingly being referred to as a potential geoengineering option. Maybe it's not already happening by conspiracy, but "chem trails" themselves are not batshit.

something less serious, this is so fucking catty

Saw that the other day, was great. You can almost see her id seething. I'm potentially doing a paper on the wage gap for one of my classes. It's a paper where we are supposed to kind of be edgy so I picked a safe one .

 

[rms]

best part was when JP goes "i got you" and and she replies "you did....*pause* *retort* !"

no idea what network this is but so fucking unprofessional, especially for a 30m interview!

reminds me of this:

 

[CiG]

If JP wasn't married I'd have assumed he gave her his Kermit kock once the cameras were switched off.

 

[rms]

hah i didnt get that vibe at all. that chick was getting her twitter likes

and this is the strangest news i've heard today


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42741789 :
Jacinda Ardern: New Zealand PM reveals she is pregnant

 

[CiG]

Whenever a woman gets mad or catty like that with me and tries to be brash and aggressive I sense sexual tension. I wonder why...

 

[Dak]

http://quillette.com/2018/01/17/jordan-b-peterson-critical-theory-new-bourgeoisie/

Christakis mentions two important things about Newman. First, she seemed hostile towards Peterson, clearly going into the interview with a moral prejudice towards him. Second, she seemed unable to engage with his arguments, instead misrepresenting them (“You’re saying women aren’t intelligent enough to run top companies?”) or taking issue with them (during a conversation about unhealthy relationships, Newman asked: “What gives you the right to say that?” Answer: “I’m a clinical psychologist.”) At one point, she was rendered speechless.

It was as though she had never heard arguments like Peterson’s before, and was taken aback to discover they existed. As a presumably well-read person, why had she not been exposed to arguments like this before? The answer, I think, is that these arguments have largely been banished from contemporary mainstream news media and entertainment. Only because of Peterson’s immense grassroots success has he forced his way into the conversation, which makes it all the more awkward when an interviewer looking to put him in place ends up bewildered.

 

[Einherjar86]

That's not a bad article. It makes some decent points. And I'd agree that critical theory doesn't promote universal values, and that it must turn its critical gaze on itself. But of course, for the record, it does do this--the critique is just more nuanced than is useful for this person's account (that is, it's more specific than is necessary for this argument). I mean, Jean Baudrillard is a critical theorist, but he's not a Marxist (although he started off that way; same goes for Lyotard).

We can mock the interviewer all we want, but unfortunately we don't have enough information to know whether the problem is her intelligence or the limited platform the interview provides.

Peterson and critical theorists speak different theoretical vernaculars. Whether you think one is more politically relevant or even truthful is fine, but that's a matter of persuasion, not reality. We can't prove one language to be more accurate than another within the vocabulary of that language. Languages can only fail or succeed. The test of their application is whether they manage to survive. It has nothing to do with being right.

When we come to these differences in vernacular, it's immensely difficult to translate them into a journalistic environment. Peterson has the upper hand, believe it or not, because he's being asked questions. His platform is one of explanation. I personally think the journalist's silence indicates her inability to translate Peterson's comments into her own perspective, which might require unpacking certain ideas in order for them to make sense.

Long story short, I think this kind of miscommunication is more complicated than that Peterson is the adept and the journalist is the apprentice (although again, it might be true that she's literate in only the superficial aspects of her theoretical approach).

Also, last word--critical theory definitely isn't a "methodology." The author's description of critical theory is limited to the Frankfurt School. Critical theory encompasses a much broader range of methodologies.

 

[Dak]

I appreciate your response. I'll admit a bias to Peterson because he shares a similar thought process, despite his neofreudian background. There is, apparently, a tendency in some persons to "think like a psychologist", which apparently attracts psychologists. Go figure amirite.

I would say that Peterson has the upper hand for the reasons given in the article, assuming that the interviewer is like most interviewers. Peterson has an edge in intelligence, knowledge, and theory. It's not a fair fight, as long as he can remain calm, which he did.

 

[CiG]

While the interview was an embarrassing mess (she even threw an alt-right smear in there so randomly it was jarring) but I actually think it is all much less sinister than everybody is implying or outright claiming.

In the UK it's a tradition for interviewers to be combative and aggressive and keep their guest on their toes. Literally watch any show with any guest who leans in any political direction and you'll see that kind of aggression and adversarial technique. I think the reason she seemed so dumbfounded, idiotic and that moment she was rendered speechless is because she was, as is her job, expected to go in and give JP a good battering and her depth of cue-card responses was lacking for someone like JP.

Andrew Neil of the BBC is one of the best examples of this, he shreds people (or attempts to) on either side of the isle, so-called.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

 

[CiG]

 

[Dak]

 

[Dak]

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

 

[Dak]

Imagine if they put as much effort into their own lives.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

The best comment I saw was "tfw you can't even stand up for your rights".

 

[Dak]

None of those people are happy, nearly all look incredibly unhealthy, and protesting isn't going to fix any of their problems. At best it merely provides a brief respite from the misery of their pointless lives in a fleeting feeling of imagined meaning.

 

[Dak]