If Mort Divine ruled the world

[HamburgerBoy]

Shapiro had at least one talk cancelled due to protesters disrupting it and causing safety issues. Charles Murray had a talk somewhere in Vermont where his car was attacked and his professor escort given a concussion. Probably not Sam Harris, although considering that he's far from a right-wing demagogue that doesn't say much. I don't count Peterson since he doesn't live in a country with freedom of speech, so what Canadian colleges do doesn't matter to me.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't count Peterson since he doesn't live in a country with freedom of speech, so what Canadian colleges do doesn't matter to me.

ok then.

Looked more up on Shapiro, he has had a talk cancelled. Murray has as well, but he's also been hosted at major universities. Furthermore, some conservative group at UC Berkeley also hosted Shapiro, despite his complaints that another of his talks was cancelled.

The central point is that these people are complaining that their platforms are being taken away, which is far from true.

which of the dark webbers are saying they are oppressed? I feel like this is some weird strawman being made.

I feel that straw men may be coming from both angles--likely, in fact. Robinson isn't quoting any of them directly, but is appealing to a piece written about them.

But yes, I do think that part of the general sentiment underlying a lot of their speech is that they're being told they can't say what they want to say, when in fact they are saying what they want to say. Straw men abound here as well because they paint themselves as free speech underdogs whose ideas are being silenced, when that's not really what's happening. I feel that it's less part of any argument against the other side and more the cultivation of a media persona.

And I also feel like they aren't really interested in open debate either; they're interested in media exposure and having platforms from which to give speeches about their ideas. It could be said that I haven't bothered to read Jordan Peterson's book (because I haven't); but it can also be said that he hasn't read any of the "postmodern Marxists" that he criticizes (because he hasn't; his knowledge comes from one negative book written about postmodernism, if I recall correctly).

So, no one really wants to have a debate. They all just want to kick and scream and feel giddy at making others squirm.

 

[Dak]

But yes, I do think that part of the general sentiment underlying a lot of their speech is that they're being told they can't say what they want to say, when in fact they are saying what they want to say. Straw men abound here as well because they paint themselves as free speech underdogs whose ideas are being silenced, when that's not really what's happening. I feel that it's less part of any argument against the other side and more the cultivation of a media persona.

And I also feel like they aren't really interested in open debate either; they're interested in media exposure and having platforms from which to give speeches about their ideas. It could be said that I haven't bothered to read Jordan Peterson's book (because I haven't); but it can also be said that he hasn't read any of the "postmodern Marxists" that he criticizes (because he hasn't; his knowledge comes from one negative book written about postmodernism, if I recall correctly).

So, no one really wants to have a debate. They all just want to kick and scream and feel giddy at making others squirm.

This might surprise you but I'm increasingly of the same sentiment across the board. Rubin's schtick is already old and the show has been mostly an exercise in mutual masturbation about the same topic (omg illiberalism!) rather than discussing broad ideas. Peterson is strong when he sticks to psychology, and I think he's mostly accidentally right when he strays from there - but he tends not to stick as much to the psychology when he gives speeches compared with his various videos/webchats. I assume that's because the draw for the speeches is the more inflammatory stuff. Shapiro may be good as a debater (although I don't much care for him), but you so rarely see him in a true debate. Knocking down the tweet level talking points of college undergrads probably makes him feel good, but it's an unfair fight. Furthermore, preaching to the choir in the internet age gets old.

In short, media personalities rapidly become grating to me as they usually have 1 or 2 hobby horses and never enlarge the proverbial stable. I don't understand the cult of personality.

 

[The Ozzman]

Australia should ban guns, amiriteguise?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

ok then.

Looked more up on Shapiro, he has had a talk cancelled. Murray has as well, but he's also been hosted at major universities. Furthermore, some conservative group at UC Berkeley also hosted Shapiro, despite his complaints that another of his talks was cancelled.

The central point is that these people are complaining that their platforms are being taken away, which is far from true.

Canada does not protect political speech like the USA does. That is indisputable.

The point is that many of them previously had their public platforms taken away by lawlessness. That it created a backlash leading to the fame and wealth of said de-platformed speakers is irrelevant.

 

[arg]

 

[rms]

Canada does not protect political speech like the USA does. That is indisputable.

I didnt know it was illegal in Canada to deny the holocaust until this week

 

[Einherjar86]

Canada does not protect political speech like the USA does. That is indisputable.

I wasn't disputing it. I was just laughing at your "what Canada does doesn't matter to me" remark.

The point is that many of them previously had their public platforms taken away by lawlessness. That it created a backlash leading to the fame and wealth of said de-platformed speakers is irrelevant.

This is such an over-exaggeration. They never had their platforms taken away. Some of them were prevented from speaking at specific venues. They weren't barred from public speaking or from speaking at any vast number of colleges.

 

[Einherjar86]

This might surprise you but I'm increasingly of the same sentiment across the board. Rubin's schtick is already old and the show has been mostly an exercise in mutual masturbation about the same topic (omg illiberalism!) rather than discussing broad ideas. Peterson is strong when he sticks to psychology, and I think he's mostly accidentally right when he strays from there - but he tends not to stick as much to the psychology when he gives speeches compared with his various videos/webchats. I assume that's because the draw for the speeches is the more inflammatory stuff. Shapiro may be good as a debater (although I don't much care for him), but you so rarely see him in a true debate. Knocking down the tweet level talking points of college undergrads probably makes him feel good, but it's an unfair fight. Furthermore, preaching to the choir in the internet age gets old.

In short, media personalities rapidly become grating to me as they usually have 1 or 2 hobby horses and never enlarge the proverbial stable. I don't understand the cult of personality.

I realize we probably land on different sides of the topics, but yeah, I agree. They're cultivating personalities, not trying to have intelligent discussions (for the most part).

 

[Dak]

I realize we probably land on different sides of the topics, but yeah, I agree. They're cultivating personalities, not trying to have intelligent discussions (for the most part).

Yeah, I am increasingly in disrespect mode for people who haven't achieved anything outside of attention. Peterson at least has academic achievement. Shapiro and Rubin are more or less personalities only. I've become increasingly impressed with Sowell not becoming a true personality when he had every opportunity and avenue to do so. Even Walter Williams filled in for Rush Limbaugh. I've recently watched quite a few old episodes of Firing Line, and somehow Buckley manages to make himself repugnant even when interviewing conservatives (some of it is admittedly aesthetic). I watched episodes with Alinsky and Chomsky and found myself far more impressed with both of them than Buckley. Sowell towered over Buckley (figuratively) without ever rising from his chair. All of that said, Buckley at least conducted a reasonably adult interview, the likes of which you cannot find now. In terms of breadth of guests, Joe Rogan is probably one of the best platforms going, and he isn't snide (although he isn't strictly sticking to intellectual topics). I wish someone could interview more intellectuals from all sides with challenging but not side-serving questions in a more professional atmosphere. It is, in my opinion, extremely indicting that no one has really improved on Firing Line, in a couple of decades, when there is plenty of room for improvement.

 

[Einherjar86]

So, I feel like Peterson is on his way out (intellectually) for putting his foot in his mouth in interviews like this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/...s-for-life.html#click=https://t.co/ZQRGi2qSqr

Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.

“Half the men fail,” he says, meaning that they don’t procreate. “And no one cares about the men who fail.”

I laugh, because it is absurd.

“You’re laughing about them,” he says, giving me a disappointed look. “That’s because you’re female.”

But aside from interventions that would redistribute sex, Mr. Peterson is staunchly against what he calls “equality of outcomes,” or efforts to equalize society. He usually calls them pathological or evil.

He agrees that this is inconsistent. But preventing hordes of single men from violence, he believes, is necessary for the stability of society. Enforced monogamy helps neutralize that.

Of course, he's likely to retain (and maybe gain) plenty of followers in his current internet subcultures.

 

[Dak]

So, I feel like Peterson is on his way out (intellectually) for putting his foot in his mouth in interviews like this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/...s-for-life.html#click=https://t.co/ZQRGi2qSqr

Of course, he's likely to retain (and maybe gain) plenty of followers in his current internet subcultures.

I'm curious as to which or how many parts of that quote you think include foot-in-mouth instances. I could see a range of several to none, depending on the perspective.

 

[Einherjar86]

Enforced monogamy, primarily. The rest invites degrees of argumentation.

 

[Dak]

Enforced monogamy, primarily. The rest invites degrees of argumentation.

Enforced monogamy is simply the mores of ~<1950. EG no "free love". The irony is no one would approve of polygamy, but Peterson is putting his supposed foot in mouth for rejecting the same thing sans socially condoned "permanence".

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Peterson's a light-weight who doesn't have a modicum of understanding on most of the social/historical issues he pretends to be an authority on. He's this generation's Ayn Rand, but without the facade of profundity. Now go clean your rooms, incels.

 

[Dak]

Now go clean your rooms, incels.

Well he is probably right about that at least. Incels most likely have dirty rooms full of cum socks.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Well he is probably right about that at least. Incels most likely have dirty rooms full of cum socks.

Maybe, as a means of pulling these insecure yet self-righteous types out of their dirty little rooms and into spaces of social interaction, instead of enforced monogamy, we should have enforced monocumsockogamy. Only one sock for you!

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Enforced monogamy is simply the mores of ~<1950. EG no "free love". The irony is no one would approve of polygamy, but Peterson is putting his supposed foot in mouth for rejecting the same thing sans socially condoned "permanence".

Is there evidence that sexually-frustrated violence was lower in the 1950s and before than after? Does Europe, a continent which generally practices "free love", suffer from sexually-frustrated violence at a rate comparable to ours?

Polygamy existed primarily under a patriarchal world in which a wife was effectively the property of her husband. People don't approve of it largely because it generally entails some form of abuse between the man and his women (see: most religious cults, R Kelly, etc). It had nothing to do with free love outside of both entailing one man having sex with multiple women under the same roof, so there is no irony in opposing polygamy while condoning people of either sex to have sexual relationships with whomever they want to.

Peterson is just regurgitating MRA/MGTOW/incel memes because he knows those are his greatest financial supporters. I respect the hustle on his part, but I haven't seen much to support the claims he has made.

 

[Dak]

Is there evidence that sexually-frustrated violence was lower in the 1950s and before than after? Does Europe, a continent which generally practices "free love", suffer from sexually-frustrated violence at a rate comparable to ours?

Polygamy existed primarily under a patriarchal world in which a wife was effectively the property of her husband. People don't approve of it largely because it generally entails some form of abuse between the man and his women (see: most religious cults, R Kelly, etc). It had nothing to do with free love outside of both entailing one man having sex with multiple women under the same roof, so there is no irony in opposing polygamy while condoning people of either sex to have sexual relationships with whomever they want to.

Peterson is just regurgitating MRA/MGTOW/incel memes because he knows those are his greatest financial supporters. I respect the hustle on his part, but I haven't seen much to support the claims he has made.

Doesn't Europe generally allow prostitution? Prostitution is the solution for the args of the world in a world that doesn't frown on extramarital sex. Allowing "free love" but generally disallowing sex work is going to leave a not-insignificant number of men SOL. I'm still trying to figure out how the parents didn't "know their son to be someone like that" or whatever, when he's wearing trench coats to school and posting it on FB with cthulu and commie pins on it (if the interwebs is to be believe).

In other news: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/corporate-social-responsibility/

Moral licensing might explain inconsistency in virtue signaling behavior vs actually being a good person. Why you get a feminist calling the police on a black woman over nothing.

 

[Einherjar86]

Enforced monogamy is simply the mores of ~<1950. EG no "free love". The irony is no one would approve of polygamy, but Peterson is putting his supposed foot in mouth for rejecting the same thing sans socially condoned "permanence".

"Free love" isn't the extent of sexual consciousness post-World War II, and I don't think it's accurate to chalk it up to that.

I think we also need to specify what Peterson is arguing for. He wants all single men to have partners. Enforcing monogamy doesn't mean outlawing polygamy; he means that all single men should have wives. This translates into some kind of regulation that forces women to marry single men. In other words, both men and women should have one partner; but it's more important that men have partners (according to Peterson), and women should be forced to accommodate this. It's proto-Handmaid's Tale, but with quasi-religious fundamentalism masquerading as some kind of weird mytho-philosophy.

This is where I think Peterson puts his foot in his mouth. Any modern opposition to enforced monogamy doesn't have to do with free love; it has to do with the women's movement and advancement of women's rights since the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. The whole concept of enforced monogamy should be an absurd declaration.