If Mort Divine ruled the world

[rms]

and that said god figure has an obligation to promote his ethnicity to the betterment of his followers.

don't understand why he didn't challenge the arrogance of this statement/theme throughout the article

 

[Einherjar86]

Well then we are in agreement that one isn't worse than the other. That's been my point - that The Holocaust or The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade have been imbued with additional significance, that they were somehow worse, either because of scale, or because of the support of racial ideologies, etc.

Being endowed with significance doesn't translate into evaluating something as worse in degree, of course. It's true that scholars and intellectuals pay a lot of attention to these phenomena, but it's not because they're worse than the Great Terror or the Cultural Revolution or the Rwandan Genocide (which plenty of scholars also study). Simply attending to the particular complexities of a historical occurrence doesn't mean one assumes it to be somehow more important than any other occurrence (or in the case of genocidal phenomena, more egregious).

Understanding in depth the way that all particular historical factors involved contributed to the atrocities of The Holocaust, or the TAST wind up being misinformative insofar as those factors are seen as purely particular and not outgrowths of longstanding facets of human behavior. This is the fundamental point of contention, I would say, between those which could be divided as "conservative" vs "progressive", or as Sowell labels it, the "Constrained" vs the "Unconstrained" world view. The conflicting visions often lead to differing interpretations of what amounts to a problem, but even when there is agreement on a problem, attempts to jointly approach it and/or prevent recurrence fail to launch.

I think this is true. And I wouldn't say that massive historical systems or movements are definitively disconnected from longstanding facets of human behavior. But it's almost impossible to imagine that these phenomena would, or could, have occurred without the material conditions in place at the time. In other words, the historical organization and development of a society are almost absolutely necessary in order for these longstanding facets to realize themselves in the way they did.

Another reason I'm uninterested in reducing or simplifying such phenomena to prehistoric facets of human behavior is that every single modern human behavior is reducible or traceable to purportedly prehistoric facets. If people get along with one another, we can trace it back; and if they kill one another, we can trace it back. Simply looking at human behavior doesn't explain why these phenomena were possible.

 

[The Ozzman]

What's the difference outside of scale/efficiency?

Jews vs. the goyim tbh

WE

WUZ

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm down with this perspective. I think a lot of the disgruntled commentary coming from the "intellectual dark web" is, in fact, undermined by the very fact that such commentary exists:

In fact, all of the persecuted intellectuals appear constantly in major outlets with huge reach. Whether it’s Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson appearing on HBO’s Real Time, Christina Hoff Sommers writing for Slate, the Atlantic, and the New York Times, Milo going on CNN, Bret Weinstein being interviewed on FOX News, Andrew Sullivan being racist in New York magazine, Peterson getting invited on the NBC Nightly News, or Ben Shapiro being profiled in the New York Times, not one of these individuals ever seems to lack for a mainstream perch from which to squawk. It’s a strange kind of oppression in which silenced dissidents keep getting book deals, op-eds, sold-out speaking tours, lucrative Patreons, millions of YouTube views, and sympathetic profiles in the world’s leading newspapers. How much more attention do they want? How much freer can speech be? Weiss’ article itself pushes the absurdity to its limits. It features half a dozen staged photographs of its subjects moodily lurking amidst topiaries, and is the longest piece yet in Weiss’ ongoingseries on the illiberalism and repressiveness of the left. As one commenter put it, Weiss’ argument is “that unseen forces are preventing her and those like her from making the exact arguments that she’s making, right now, in the exact venue where she’s making them, right now.”

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/05/pretty-loud-for-being-so-silenced

I feel like the terms of the debate misconstrue what's actually happening. People like Peterson et al aren't so much peeved because they can't say certain things--in fact, they are saying the very things they're claiming they can't say.

They're peeved because people criticize them for saying the things they say. Now, I'll be the first to admit that some PC culture voices are in fact calling for silencing--i.e. they want these figures to not be able to say certain things. That is true; it's by no means as popularly rampant as they claim, but it's true. My concern is that they treat any objection to their comments as attempts at radical PC-censorship. If we agree that such censorship is democratically unethical (democratic in the sense of free and open discourse), then the most plausible interpretation of the IDW response is that they want censorship to stop; they think it should be, for lack of a better word, illegal (or prevented somehow).

From this angle, I see these people as basically perpetrating the same kind of democratically unethical ideas that they accuse their "censors" of doing. These people don't want free speech; they just want to be able to say whatever they want and not be criticized for it.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Asking to not have your talk shut down at a publicly-funded university by far-leftist protesters threatening and/or committing violence is not asking for freedom from criticism.

 

[Einherjar86]

My only response is that that is a minimal slice of what is being discussed here. Has Sam Harris been chanted out of a talk? Has Shapiro? Has Peterson? Peterson's talks have been protested, but not cancelled--and if these people have the right to speak their minds, then so do the protesters who disagree with them.

The big names with talks cancelled have been Milo, Murray, and what's-his-name from Breitbart. Hell, Charles Murray spoke at Harvard and Yale last year. There isn't some nationwide pandemic of talks being shut down.

 

[rms]

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

The campus thing seems to be a question centered around how impactful is twitter? and I'm sure Weiss or Sullivan feel twitter is very impactful after her recent gaffe (Sullivan's is just whatever). Are most / all exaggerating it for personal gain/security? Probably. Christ, Peterson is apparently making 10s of thousands per month off just patreon now.

 

[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.