Dak
mentat
There are probably many leftists who think Gates should be deplatformed, or who would once all rightwingers were deplatformed. This is what the research on relative baserate bias shows. This is also the "ratchet" effect.
If Mort Divine ruled the world
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
There are probably many leftists who think Gates should be deplatformed, or who would once all rightwingers were deplatformed. This is what the research on relative baserate bias shows. This is also the "ratchet" effect.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Dak
mentat
Because he dared to suggest blacks might have some culpability in slavery, and that the case for reparations is extremely problematic.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,728
- 113
Hannity is as much of a milquetoast Republican partisan as you can get. I'd like to see where he has advocated for David Duke, Richard Spencer, or any white supremacist to be given representation by a private company.
Have Ann Coulter or Charles Murray called for the systematic execution of racial minorities?
I hope you realize that groups of "single individuals" go to these protests with the intent of shutting things down. They tend to get shut down when people (in most cases, leftists) start rioting.
Strawman. I've never said that this ideal exists or ever has, I'm saying that unless you provide evidence that striving towards that ideal causes more harm than good, you seem to have an unfounded case.
Describe the way in which American society currently regulates freedom of expression. Saying the n-word is not illegal in the USA; you seem to be jumping back and forth between legality and social mores.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Virtually.
I do, but thanks for checking.
My case is no more unfounded than your objection.
You're assuming that, all things being equal, free expression is a priori better than the regulation of speech. There's no absolute justification for such an assumption; it's a side effect of the West's glorification of the possessive liberal selfhood. We could just as easily assume that, all things being equal, regulating speech is the a priori better option.
I never suggested that you believed in this ideal, but it's certainly true that Western (particularly American) ideology is built around this central value. We've spent centuries operating according to the value of absolute individual freedom, and always at the expense of certain people's individual freedom. Maybe it's time to reconfigure our value system.
I was never talking about illegality. In fact, I specified that what I'm talking about doesn't have to do with legality. As far as I'm concerned, people can still say whatever they want--even on national television, should they be able to make it on-air. I'm merely saying that maybe media networks/platforms could be more judicious toward whom they allow on.
The process for making these determinations would be what happens already: ongoing social discourse gives us an emergent picture of acceptable language. The process isn't perfect, but complex patterns do emerge out of the mass of social behavior.
And yet leftists aren't calling for him to be "deplatformed." See, the left is actually tolerant of these kinds of ideas, as long as they're treated in a considerate manner.
Dak
mentat
Like, as in a video game?
Yes, let's start the oppression of the progressive, urban/suburban, educated, white persons. They've been hogging the megaphone far too long with nothing to show for it but pussy hats and self-segregation into nearly all-white urban enclaves with "good schools" (loudest damn dog whistle in the country).
Well one, his black identity and his other works have afforded him a little protection. Two, see the rest of my comment. If you remove everything to the right of Gates, now he's a despicable Uncle Tom and IT'S THE CURRENT YEAR, OFF WITH HIS HEAD.
Dak
mentat
I just realized JP kind of reminds me of Jim Leahy with hair. I also found a recent interview he did with Camille Paglia where he admits he's in problematic territory going outside of his area of competence, which was nice to see.
I think what's appealing about Peterson is his matter of fact dealing with the commonalities across experience as only an experienced psychologist would, who no longer is concerned with his typical professional career track. The conviction is appealing, and his psychological angle is mostly accurate. So the conviction paired with the general accuracy on the individual level of experience is enrapturing for those who are either A. Looking for an explanation of what they experience and/or B. Those looking for direction through the often unintelligible maze of modern life for those <115 IQ with a typical or even atypical upbringing of the wrong sort.
In sympathy to a leftist perspective, JP does acknowledge that the left perspective importantly stresses that too steep or rigid of a hierarchy of power or money can create serious problems. There are left and right personalities, with their own strengths and weaknesses, which he appreciates. His consistent characterization is that liberals create possibilities, conservatives effectively implement possibilities, and that that there will be hierarchies yet they create problems but are also necessary.
Good intro here that captures a lot of it. Nice to see him open things to questions within 12 minutes.
I think what's appealing about Peterson is his matter of fact dealing with the commonalities across experience as only an experienced psychologist would, who no longer is concerned with his typical professional career track. The conviction is appealing, and his psychological angle is mostly accurate. So the conviction paired with the general accuracy on the individual level of experience is enrapturing for those who are either A. Looking for an explanation of what they experience and/or B. Those looking for direction through the often unintelligible maze of modern life for those <115 IQ with a typical or even atypical upbringing of the wrong sort.
In sympathy to a leftist perspective, JP does acknowledge that the left perspective importantly stresses that too steep or rigid of a hierarchy of power or money can create serious problems. There are left and right personalities, with their own strengths and weaknesses, which he appreciates. His consistent characterization is that liberals create possibilities, conservatives effectively implement possibilities, and that that there will be hierarchies yet they create problems but are also necessary.
Good intro here that captures a lot of it. Nice to see him open things to questions within 12 minutes.
Last edited:
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,728
- 113
Prove it.
You clearly didn't based on your previous post.
Your mind has been infected with the virus of "Duuude nothing can reaaaaly be proven". I've clearly provided justification by listing four examples in American history which support my argument. You are a person that studies the social value of science-fiction and as such aren't trained to think analytically and using data. I've already asked you once to give examples of excess freedom of expression being "at the expense of certain people's individual freedom" and you dodged it, so there's no point in asking again. Maybe in academia you can publish a paper on the ethics of Klingon society by evaluating a single aspect of their values systems, being that the world-building of fiction writers is usually conceptually simplistic and morally obvious, involving evaluation of said values through allegory in the form of an intergalactic battle centered around two diametrically opposed groups. In the real world, simply saying that you "call bullshit" without explaining why, asserting a single proposition ("The liberal West glorifies free expression") does not an argument make.
It has a lot to do with legality. If there was no legal basis for public universities being sued over inadequate protection for public speakers, said lawsuits wouldn't happen.
Dak
mentat
I give HBB plenty of shit, but it's interesting to see the difference between anarchically educated (ourselves) and the Bismarckian educated......and somehow the anarchically educated are more conservative.
Einherjar86
Active Member
You've listed four examples of society working through the process of determining acceptable speech.
You're assuming that my supposed vision of thought policing is the end-all be-all of what should be said; but that's not the case. Such a practice can only ever be a process. From our perspective, we have language that is acceptable and language that isn't. The point is that total freedom of expression provides no direction whatsoever. Speech always needs to be in conversation with social reactions. There's no end result. It can only evolve.
Yes, I'm choosing not to respond to your other comments. But as you said, I don't think anything can be proven.
I'm not sure if you think there's a way for us to actually communicate, but you don't respond like you do.
That's not an objectionable comment. And if Peterson is finally actually trying to have a conversation, then that's a good thing.
Conservatism is trending toward anarchism--because at this point in American history, society is becoming an infringement on individualism for some people.
HBB likes facts, and facts are great. But they're not absolute truths, and that's something a few people here can afford to learn. "Proving" something means identifying its metaphysical constancy. Unfortunately, everything that we consider "proof" rests upon values that are culturally or historically contingent. That's not to deny a physical reality, but only that the meaning of physical reality doesn't reside in that reality itself.
Dak
mentat
Hannity is a joke, but he's no worse than Maddow et al, whose name is never uttered as contributing to the problem. Hannity is "virtually" calling for mass killings. No, he's not. He's just the less masculine Coulter or Maddow.
Well it depends on how you conceptualize anarchy (eg, on a single axis vs a dual axis). On a single axis yes. On a dual axis no.
My point in pointing out the difference in education is that HBB and I have radically different educational experience both between groups (you and us; progressive/~libertarian/conservative) and within group (HBB and I). Yet, both HBB and I would gravitate towards what is now conservative vs the standard thing some randomly generated person from 100% state or even traditionally privately educated person would endorse (which would align with the things which you endorse although you provide justification at higher resolutions because of your privileges of gender, IQ, and education-specifics).
I wouldn't even qualify what I received as education. My education was shit by most standards both 20 years ago or today. I had some phonics and some ABEKA math and some creationist earth science. woot. I didn't even have a high school education. My education besides creatiionist earth science past age 12 before college was basically just reading 18th-19th century literary classics a couple of hours a day and writing single college-rule page reaction papers in cursive, and otherwise pursuing my own interests. And somehow I outperform 90+ percent of students. I waited until my 20s to be physically active and I outperform 90% of adults in that way too (cardio-wise anyway). The Bismarckian system is completely outdated by more than 3 generations and yet we get hit with statements like "y u guys no like facts"? No, they aren't "absolute", but something you could learn is that absolutes aren't necessary for significant, persistent effects.
JP: "Why am I a conservative? First do no harm." This is the fundamental issue. While there may be harm in the current arrangement, there could be worse harm in changes.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,728
- 113
fwiw I did attend a public school up until halfway through 6th grade. My homeschooling looks like it was better than yours, although there were parallels. My science textbooks were Creationist though tbh they weren't bad outside of maybe the biology book, basically standard freshman college science with the obligatory, "And to think those kooky evolutionists thought it all happened by chance!" at the end of each chapter. My parents didn't care much about anything that wasn't math or science, however. Math exams were the only real exams I took during my homeschooling (I think not by coincidence calculus 1 was my worst class in college, whereas I did pretty well on the calc 2 material that I had never been exposed to before). Though my dad did make a strong effort to teach us all deductive reasoning and symbolic logic our first years of homeschooling, and since he's an electrical/computer engineer (AND, OR, NOR gates galore) he was plenty qualified to do so. My siblings and I all did pretty well as a result, far better off than we would have likely been at a public school.
But I think there's going to be a natural bias in that we both presumably had conservative upbringings which shaped our ideologies to at least some extent. Kids homeschooled by hippies may end up more left-wing or pomo or whatever. I think Einherjar's particular brand of reasoning is rare in any political corner; the average Dem will still authoritatively state that solution X is needed for problem Y because of Z. Tell working-class Joe that he can't really know if the brown-colored meat puck he's flipping exists, and he's going to vote Republican.
I'd be fine with this perspective if you didn't use the inability to know things in order to justify social policy for the expressed purpose of knowing a vision for a better society. I think most scientists acknowledge that we can't know to have proven anything with 100% certainty, instead we just disprove the null and gradually refine our theories with the knowledge we've accrued. That doesn't mean that we knowingly perform actions without attempting to know as much as we can about the potential consequences of said actions.
But I think there's going to be a natural bias in that we both presumably had conservative upbringings which shaped our ideologies to at least some extent. Kids homeschooled by hippies may end up more left-wing or pomo or whatever. I think Einherjar's particular brand of reasoning is rare in any political corner; the average Dem will still authoritatively state that solution X is needed for problem Y because of Z. Tell working-class Joe that he can't really know if the brown-colored meat puck he's flipping exists, and he's going to vote Republican.
I'd be fine with this perspective if you didn't use the inability to know things in order to justify social policy for the expressed purpose of knowing a vision for a better society. I think most scientists acknowledge that we can't know to have proven anything with 100% certainty, instead we just disprove the null and gradually refine our theories with the knowledge we've accrued. That doesn't mean that we knowingly perform actions without attempting to know as much as we can about the potential consequences of said actions.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I hope that's not what I'm doing.
I haven't said that physical reality doesn't exist, but only that the values we attribute to physical reality have no metaphysical origin in the physical world. They're our interpretations of what happens around us. So when Dak and I disagree over what the primary reason behind, say, African American poverty and criminal behavior is, we're debating competing interpretations--not any provable reality. That crime and poverty are rampant in African American communities isn't debatable, but the reasons for this are both debatable and unprovable.
For the topic at hand, I'm saying that the value of free speech has no origin in the physical world, and so assuming that individual free speech is de facto better than regulated speech is the imposition of a value--not the discovery or promotion of an a priori truth. That there possibly exists no society in history that fell into decay due to excessive free speech is certainly evidence that free speech is good; but it's also evidence that speech has always been appropriately (socially) regulated. Alternatively, there have definitely been cases throughout history in which regulation had unwanted consequences; but it's also probably true that countless instances of social regulation are happening all the time and flying under the radar because they have no (or minimal) disruptive consequences.
As most social scientists will admit, the prospect of disproving complex social functions is more difficult than disproving phenomena in a controlled laboratory setting. Often, when complex social functions are working, we remain blind to how they're working, and how effectively they're working. Ascertaining their existence and functionality often requires some degree of speculation (although all the best scientists have ultimately resorted to speculation). This isn't to say we can't know anything, but only that the argument has to be about the interpretation of observations, not merely whether certain things have been observed.
I'm going to go ahead and say that Hannity is worse than Maddow. You disagree then you disagree.
I love facts, but I don't think they're transparent. Let's debate about the facts. That's what's at issue here. As I said above, interpretations matter as much as the facts themselves. When people demand "proof," that means they want absolutes. They want facts whose persistence within reality is unchanging and has an unchanging meaning. That's what I have a problem with.
edit: Aeon just published a piece that's relevant to what I'm saying. And the Sherlock Holmes quote gets right to the heart of it: "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact."
https://aeon.co/essays/are-humans-really-blind-to-the-gorilla-on-the-basketball-court
Last edited:
Dak
mentat
I agree with this, and this is a strong argument for conservatism in many aspects, but most especially socially and fiscally.
Good article, but I'm not quite certain how directly it applies to things here. It's not a novel observation to me that our observational capabilities are directed. Philosophy long ago shot down passive reception of sensory input, before science confirmed we do not simply "receive". This is also undergirding the claims to problems in the liberal arts by Haidt et al.; there's such a heavy liberal presence that the research and education can't help but be skewed. I like the phrase, which I is militaryish-originating, which refers to "facts on the ground". While this refers to material/physical aspects as opposed to theoretical truths, it is also time/place/etc contingent. The facts on the ground can change moment to moment. But that doesn't change their factual status at the time of discussion.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I interpret it differently.
I didn't mean to imply that it was new, only that it complemented this discussion insofar as the author is saying that facts aren't obvious by nature. They're obvious depending on context, and context means the imposition of values on our observations.
Funerary_Doom
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
I had an interesting conversation about gender expectations.
Basically, the argument persisted because my friend believed that most violence is a byproduct of toxic masculinity (I disagree with this but I'll elaborate my side later). In addition, the world would be better if there were no gender roles because they have really harmful psychological effects on men.
My gripe on this is that one's culture shapes gender stereotypes, and America has many different cultures and even the definition of "traditional gender roles" has changed over the years. Within any institution there are roles. Roles do help with power distribution. However, most gender roles are cultural and don't necessarily serve specific partner pairs, but maybe cultural institutions. I don't think gender roles are necessary because there isn't a gender attribute that's attributed to one gender. Also, I do see that there are issues with imposing gender roles, but I believe that gender roles could be used a in practical sense (depending on what society or culture you come from) to maintain discipline. In my own experience, I really don't see the effects of gender roles. I live in a Westernized society in which I can choose what type of relationships I want to have with other people, and I am not alone in this. I mean to say most violence is a byproduct of toxic masculinity... is a stretch. Are men more stifled? Maybe. Is it easier for a woman to get into "all men circles", to be into sports, or display aggressive behavior? I don't really know. None of this is taboo in the culture or reality I live in. If I think about the flip-side, can men easily get into "all women circles" and display "feminine" qualities? I don't really see the problem. There are men makeup artists, hairstylists, and men who have friends that are predominantly female. I know being frustrated can lead to people lashing out, but I'm having a hard time to attributing all that frustration to toxic masculinity and unable to fulfill expectations set by gender roles (and if you live in America or any Westernized country... these roles really don't exist or they exist very arbitrarily in so much as the company you keep, really).
I suppose I'm rather ignorant to the whole "gender debate" because I just don't feel as though it's really that important in modern society. Things like wealth, peer and family relationships, lack of resources, inequality, and government corruption all seem like greater causes of violence to me than toxic masculinity and gender roles.
/endrant
Basically, the argument persisted because my friend believed that most violence is a byproduct of toxic masculinity (I disagree with this but I'll elaborate my side later). In addition, the world would be better if there were no gender roles because they have really harmful psychological effects on men.
My gripe on this is that one's culture shapes gender stereotypes, and America has many different cultures and even the definition of "traditional gender roles" has changed over the years. Within any institution there are roles. Roles do help with power distribution. However, most gender roles are cultural and don't necessarily serve specific partner pairs, but maybe cultural institutions. I don't think gender roles are necessary because there isn't a gender attribute that's attributed to one gender. Also, I do see that there are issues with imposing gender roles, but I believe that gender roles could be used a in practical sense (depending on what society or culture you come from) to maintain discipline. In my own experience, I really don't see the effects of gender roles. I live in a Westernized society in which I can choose what type of relationships I want to have with other people, and I am not alone in this. I mean to say most violence is a byproduct of toxic masculinity... is a stretch. Are men more stifled? Maybe. Is it easier for a woman to get into "all men circles", to be into sports, or display aggressive behavior? I don't really know. None of this is taboo in the culture or reality I live in. If I think about the flip-side, can men easily get into "all women circles" and display "feminine" qualities? I don't really see the problem. There are men makeup artists, hairstylists, and men who have friends that are predominantly female. I know being frustrated can lead to people lashing out, but I'm having a hard time to attributing all that frustration to toxic masculinity and unable to fulfill expectations set by gender roles (and if you live in America or any Westernized country... these roles really don't exist or they exist very arbitrarily in so much as the company you keep, really).
I suppose I'm rather ignorant to the whole "gender debate" because I just don't feel as though it's really that important in modern society. Things like wealth, peer and family relationships, lack of resources, inequality, and government corruption all seem like greater causes of violence to me than toxic masculinity and gender roles.
/endrant
Dak
mentat
Violence is typically a tool of last resort. There are subcultures that promote it as a first line option. When you get someone of low intelligence and higher T, in a subculture pushing it as a first line option, it becomes both a last and first resort (people with low intelligence with low community support don't have many options). There's a reason that low intelligence males ages late teens-early 30s commit the overwhelming majority of violent crime. The military and police also skim off the intelligence top in that demographic for a portion of the enlistees.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Don't people get denied admission to be police officers for being too intelligent though?
I agree, but inequality in and of itself is really ambiguous. It needs more context given the fact that people aren't created equal.
Last edited:
Dak
mentat
rms
Active Member
Similar threads
