Jordan Peterson

[Timsup2nothin]

No but regardless c’mon you know what I mean by condone. American conservatism is all about loving America, especially the old ways of America. Sorry if I used the wrong word.

Yeah, I know...you mean that they have about as much of an idea how to even begin to approach the problem as you have, ie none, but since your one word self expression doesn't include them their lack of an answer is taken as acceptance while your one word position shows that even though you have no answer either you deserve credit for resisting as best you can.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No, I wouldn't say that. In addition to the 'you have to have some responsibility over the situation/person/thing' criteria, which is important, I would add that, yes, there needs to be something, within reason, that you can do, or could have done, in order to prevent it.

So, with the dog situation, it strikes me that there are practical things you could have done, or could do. The lines aren't going to be super clear, to me, when a case becomes so impractical as to have the word "letting" no longer apply, but there are certainly clear cases on either side. The dog case isn't super clear, but based on my limited knowledge of dogs, it strikes me as something on the 'let' side of things. Just because you have decided it isn't worth the effort, in my view, doesn't necessarily get you off the hook for 'letting'. I mean, I could decide it isn't worth the effort to water my plants - knowing it is going to kill them. In that case, I'm still certainly letting them die, IMO.

Hmmm...okay, grey enough then.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I know, right? Almost like there’s some sort of vast social construct around both that force them to conform to one another under threat of torture, rape, and death.

Yes I'm sure the vast majority of people go along with it only for those reasons, not because it feels entirely normal to them or anything. I mean I know how often I personally just want to break out the heels and the lipstick and it's only the torture, rape and death threats I constantly get that keep me in line.

 

[inthesomeday]

Yeah, I know...you mean that they have about as much of an idea how to even begin to approach the problem as you have, ie none, but since your one word self expression doesn't include them their lack of an answer is taken as acceptance while your one word position shows that even though you have no answer either you deserve credit for resisting as best you can.

What do you mean exactly by this? The problem being capitalism, gender, the American government? “Communism” is an entire ideology crafted over centuries specifically to solve those problems, featuring the work of hundreds of thinkers on this subject. Their input coalesces into its theory, which is rather comprehensive here, and likely answers whatever question you’re asking of it. Conservatism is also a long-developed theory, which ultimately condones— which I’ve decided to define as “generally approves of”— all these systems, indeed not seeing them as problems at all.

I’m really not understanding what you’ve been getting at this whole time. Words for political ideologies serve exactly the purpose it sounds like they do— they summarize those political ideologies. This summary is extremely convenient and saves lots of time.

 

[inthesomeday]

Yes I'm sure the vast majority of people go along with it only for those reasons, not because it feels entirely normal to them or anything. I mean I know how often I personally just want to break out the heels and the lipstick and it's only the torture, rape and death threats I constantly get that keep me in line.

^^^Displaying a deep misunderstanding of gender identity

You know normalcy, and feelings of normalcy, aren’t just programmed in, right? The binary feels normal because it’s part of the established social norm.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Of course it is. We're all drones and only you can see the real truth. Because you're just better than everyone I guess.

I look forward to your treatise on how clouds only float in the sky because they're copying all the other clouds, and that your evidence for this is because you heard some people assert it without evidence once.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What do you mean exactly by this? The problem being capitalism, gender, the American government? “Communism” is an entire ideology crafted over centuries specifically to solve those problems, featuring the work of hundreds of thinkers on this subject. Their input coalesces into its theory, which is rather comprehensive here, and likely answers whatever question you’re asking of it. Conservatism is also a long-developed theory, which ultimately condones— which I’ve decided to define as “generally approves of”— all these systems, indeed not seeing them as problems at all.

I’m really not understanding what you’ve been getting at this whole time. Words for political ideologies serve exactly the purpose it sounds like they do— they summarize those political ideologies. This summary is extremely convenient and saves lots of time.

I mean that while you with your "communist" label and my sister who you would undoubtedly label a "conservative" have exactly the same idea about how to resolve systemic problems that have defied solution for generations, ie none, one of you is "proudly resisting" while the other is "ultimately condoning"...at least according to the view through the well labeled little prism you are looking at the world through.

 

[inthesomeday]

I mean that while you with your "communist" label and my sister who you would undoubtedly label a "conservative" have exactly the same idea about how to resolve systemic problems that have defied solution for generations, ie none, one of you is "proudly resisting" while the other is "ultimately condoning"...at least according to the view through the well labeled little prism you are looking at the world through.

If your sister’s idea of a solution is radical armed uprisings in an international proletarian united front against hierarchy I really doubt I’d label her a conservative

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If your sister’s idea of a solution is radical armed uprisings in an international proletarian united front against hierarchy I really doubt I’d label her a conservative

Sooooo...is that catch phrase answer your idea of an idea?

Look, we live in the era of Donald Trump, who I excoriated constantly with "build a wall isn't a plan, it's a slogan." It pains me to reference the similarity here because I respect your ideals and despise his, but if you are discarding vast swaths of humanity because they can't dodge fast enough to avoid you when you are slapping out one word labels you need at least a glimmer of a plan, not just a parrot worthy slogan.

 

[inthesomeday]

Sooooo...is that catch phrase answer your idea of an idea?

I mean Christ dude if you want specifics I can link you some literature. My point is the label implies a substantial and specific theory. Do you want me to very specifically discuss the details of global communist revolution?

Look, we live in the era of Donald Trump, who I excoriated constantly with "build a wall isn't a plan, it's a slogan."

I think it’s a plan. It’s a plan ignorant of a lot of things, including the fact that there kind of already is a wall, but it’s a plan nonetheless.

It pains me to reference the similarity here because I respect your ideals and despise his, but if you are discarding vast swaths of humanity because they can't dodge fast enough to avoid you when you are slapping out one word labels you need at least a glimmer of a plan, not just a parrot worthy slogan.

There is plenty of planning behind communism, too. No, I’m not the first to think of the parts I came about organically, nor am I the first to realize the parts I was taught by much smarter people before me. I didn’t invent communism nor would I claim to. But there is certainly a plan for it, and one which I frequently discuss with people who I think are genuinely clueless about it. I don’t think this is you, though, Tim, so it’s more convenient for me to just say I’m a communist.

 

[innonimatu]

So this is where all the identity angst had been hiding on the forum lately

Avoiding that thing...

This thread is just moving too fast for me. @Yeekim I now definitely see where you are coming from especially wrt future automation of work places. And you are right that we should be discussing what Petey Pete is saying, now what he is implying. Though I have the faint idea that not a single person ITT has actually read "Maps of Meaning".

My post did not mean to say that Peterson is definitely advocating for genocide or eugenics, but rather that certain ways of thought keep popping up throughout scientific history and, if taken to their utmost extreme, have always lead to some marginalized group suffering. I feel like our focus on usefulnes/productivity as a member of society is our modern, adapted version of social darwinism, except now it is the "productive" (the rich, the influential, the industrious, the intelligent) that strive instead of the "strong".

I realize my posts are sometimes scattered and not as coherent as I would like, probably has something to do with language as well. Cheers and thanks for being a good debate partner.

So this guy has a huge IQ but falls for the ever-rising-productivity and future-joblessness myths?
How many... centuries have we been having such predictions made? I did read what keynes wrote about the future 3 hour work day back in the 1930s. We all know what happened instead.

The "smarter" they are, the better informed, the more vulnerable to propaganda. Not always true perhaps, but this guy does seem to fit the rule. He just likes techy, intelligent-looking propaganda. I wish him good luck doing the nasty necessary menial jobs in a society of exclusively IQ150 geniuses. They do need to eat and **** still, unless he comes up with a brilliant plan for human photosynthesis. Funny how the geniuses and the captains of industry always make sure they have commuting (in-house fell out of fashion) servants to do the lowly work, even where they have the nice new condos with all the appliances. That's why they just love immigrants, the less legally protected the better.

 

[Berzerker]

Well, I said there are a lot of environmental factors that lead to someone being conservative, which isn't really the same as saying you are hard-wired. People don't wake up one day and decide to be conservative, either. My point is the lines people try to draw around things that are choices, and thing that are not, tend to be very ill formed. People try to say some things are a choice using one line of argument. And then, using a completely contradictory line of argument, they say other things are not a choice.

Yes, you didn't choose to like juicy rib eyes, but the reason you like them so much is almost certainly at least partly a product of your environment, not just 'hard-wired'. Most people in Zimbabwe absolutely love to eat a Mopane Worms, it's high in fat and other nutrients. I have no doubt if I grew up there, I would like them too. But, being how my environment was, I can hardly stand to even watch someone eat one, seeing the guts pop out literally makes me want to throw up.

Also, you could probably intentionally or unintentionally train yourself to actually not like the taste of rib eyes. You could become a vegan, and over time, you may grow to be disgusted at the sight and smell of the blood. This has happened to many people.

Thats a good point about food, but here's what you said:

Well, conservative people didn't choose how their brains work, or their parents, or where they were born, or what ideas were instilled in them as children. It doesn't really work to walk up to a conservative and say "stop being a conservative, idiot!" change your mind to be like a communist! I mean, if you want to talk scientifically, the accepted view is that you are shaped by your biology and environment, completely.

I took the bolded part to mean hardwired

As for food, do children prefer veggies? They have to be trained to eat them, 'now eat your veggies' is heard at dinner tables all over the world. If worms and rib eyes taste good it aint the taste buds causing the revulsion. But maybe food analogies are inappropriate, sexuality runs far deeper than the foods we enjoy consuming.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There is plenty of planning behind communism, too. No, I’m not the first to think of the parts I came about organically, nor am I the first to realize the parts I was taught by much smarter people before me. I didn’t invent communism nor would I claim to. But there is certainly a plan for it, and one which I frequently discuss with people who I think are genuinely clueless about it. I don’t think this is you, though, Tim, so it’s more convenient for me to just say I’m a communist.

Plenty? Not that I've found. I've found a whole lot of happy label wearers who do think a three word slogan qualifies as a plan, but no real interest in the dirty work of actual planning. They are, in a practical sense, just like the conservatives and their wall. Mitt Romney: "I'm not just saying 'build a wall' as a slogan, I have a plan." "What's your plan?" "A high-tech wall." By adding an adjective as a second level response to use when questioned he allowed his happy throng to sneer at people who said there was no real plan...without having to examine such dismal aspects as whether it would actually stop passage of anyone, how it was expected to do so, or where the funding would come from to build it, much less maintain it.

My experience of American communists is much the same. "What's your plan?" "Revolution." "Cool. Specifics?" "Big one. Armed." "Okay, that answers that then. Glad you've really worked out the details."

Fact is that almost all revolutions, communist or otherwise, result in gross loss of life, massive deterioration in standard of living, and the handing of power to people and structures that are almost indistinguishable from those that were overthrown. Absolutely nothing stamped with the one word (Communist) seal of approval is dealing with that reality in any way other than pretending some greater morality will this time guide their steps to glory.

 

[inthesomeday]

Plenty? Not that I've found. I've found a whole lot of happy label wearers who do think a three word slogan qualifies as a plan, but no real interest in the dirty work of actual planning. They are, in a practical sense, just like the conservatives and their wall. Mitt Romney: "I'm not just saying 'build a wall' as a slogan, I have a plan." "What's your plan?" "A high-tech wall." By adding an adjective as a second level response to use when questioned he allowed his happy throng to sneer at people who said there was no real plan...without having to examine such dismal aspects as whether it would actually stop passage of anyone, how it was expected to do so, or where the funding would come from to build it, much less maintain it.

It seems like you’re not really talking about a plan, you’re talking about actively executing that plan. And there are a number of huge obstacles in the way to executing the communist program on the necessary scale. But if you really are talking about a plan I can recommend you some readings that will probably make Lex roll his eyes.

I mean even still there have been relatively successful attempts at executing a communist program; successful not in achieving communism, true, but successful in the immediate short-term goals they sought to accomplish, like expelling western occupiers, nationalizing certain industries, achieving greater quality of life, or social liberation for certain groups.

My experience of American communists is much the same. "What's your plan?" "Revolution." "Cool. Specifics?" "Big one. Armed." "Okay, that answers that then. Glad you've really worked out the details."

I mean, again, there are a lot of obstacles to consider and a lot of specifics to go into that were already better communicated by the theorists who came before us than could ever be communicated by us.

Fact is that almost all revolutions, communist or otherwise, result in gross loss of life, massive deterioration in standard of living, and the handing of power to people and structures that are almost indistinguishable from those that were overthrown.

Now this I take objection to. I would dispute this and assert that preservation of life, improvement in standard of living, and the diffusion of power are all goals which have been achieved almost exclusively by revolutionary means throughout history.

Absolutely nothing stamped with the one word (Communist) seal of approval is dealing with that reality in any way other than pretending some greater morality will this time guide their steps to glory.

Well sorry, I guess. An inability or unwillingness to consider things in broader historical or dialectical context seems like a you problem, not a Communism problem. I think there’s more than one communist on earth, but there is only one you.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It seems like you’re not really talking about a plan, you’re talking about actively executing that plan. And there are a number of huge obstacles in the way to executing the communist program on the necessary scale. But if you really are talking about a plan I can recommend you some readings that will probably make Lex roll his eyes.

I mean even still there have been relatively successful attempts at executing a communist program; successful not in achieving communism, true, but successful in the immediate short-term goals they sought to accomplish, like expelling western occupiers, nationalizing certain industries, achieving greater quality of life, or social liberation for certain groups.

I'm not insisting that anyone execute a plan, just that what is being called a plan be executable, not dreamware.

I mean, again, there are a lot of obstacles to consider and a lot of specifics to go into that were already better communicated by the theorists who came before us than could ever be communicated by us.

Keep in mind that the theorists who came before produced plans that have not been extraordinarily successful beyond the short term, and one thing that has made them particularly not successful was that short term goal of expelling the western occupiers. Expelled western occupiers inevitably become powerful external enemies. This is an area where the typical revolutionary plan; once the Imperialists are gone things will be so great that that won't be a problem really and I'm sure we'll figure it out easily; has been a huge mistake.

Now this I take objection to. I would dispute this and assert that preservation of life, improvement in standard of living, and the diffusion of power are all goals which have been achieved almost exclusively by revolutionary means throughout history.

Sure. However the other thing that has been achieved through that history of revolutionary means has been massive wealth creation via market processes associated with capitalism. This led to technology, which created population densities that history offers no guidance upon since they did not exist. Breakdowns in infrastructure, at this point, will unavoidably produce casualties in gigantic numbers. Unless your revolution has a way around that, or an unbreakable argument that the end result will be worth it, it's a non-starter.

Well sorry, I guess. An inability or unwillingness to consider things in broader historical or dialectical context seems like a you problem, not a Communism problem. I think there’s more than one communist on earth, but there is only one you.

Indeed, there is only one me...and there was only one you until you opted to be a cardboard cutout in the background. There's always plenty of those. Even in the 'communist' section.

 

[inthesomeday]

I'm not insisting that anyone execute a plan, just that what is being called a plan be executable, not dreamware.

The plans have been demonstrably executable. That they fell to revisionism or invasion is due to factors you go on to bring up.

Keep in mind that the theorists who came before produced plans that have not been extraordinarily successful beyond the short term, and one thing that has made them particularly not successful was that short term goal of expelling the western occupiers. Expelled western occupiers inevitably become powerful external enemies. This is an area where the typical revolutionary plan; once the Imperialists are gone things will be so great that that won't be a problem really and I'm sure we'll figure it out easily; has been a huge mistake.

See this is where historical context is super important. I live in the west, and it’s harder for the west to invade itself than it is for the west to invade other countries. Here a revolutionary front could effectively damage the infrastructure that empowers the west, which has mostly been impossible in other situations. Further, we can learn from failed revolutions of the past that absolutely no framework can be allowed for the development of a new property class.

Sure. However the other thing that has been achieved through that history of revolutionary means has been massive wealth creation via market processes associated with capitalism. This led to technology, which created population densities that history offers no guidance upon since they did not exist. Breakdowns in infrastructure, at this point, will unavoidably produce casualties in gigantic numbers. Unless your revolution has a way around that, or an unbreakable argument that the end result will be worth it, it's a non-starter.

Infrastructure is maintained by a class that can be radicalized as well as any other. We discussed this in another thread. Besides, autonomous management of modern infrastructure is possible; projects in Chiapas and Rojava have partially shown this.

Indeed, there is only one me...and there was only one you until you opted to be a cardboard cutout in the background. There's always plenty of those. Even in the 'communist' section.

Thank god there are, otherwise nothing would ever get done

 

[Chose]

Thats a good point about food, but here's what you said:

I took the bolded part to mean hardwired

Okay, then you just misunderstood what I said, that is fine. As you could see in the quote, I give a list of four factors that I think could influence why someone is a conservative, and at least three of them are completely environmental. So, your claim I said that conservatism is hardwired, is simply false.

 

[Lexicus]

The plans have been demonstrably executable. That they fell to revisionism or invasion is due to factors you go on to bring up.

If by "the plans" you mean the various Leninist revolutions that have happened. Sure, they've been 'executable.' The problem is that Party dictatorships have proved to be an even worse vehicle for bringing about socialism than bourgeois democracies...

 

[inthesomeday]

If by "the plans" you mean the various Leninist revolutions that have happened. Sure, they've been 'executable.' The problem is that Party dictatorships have proved to be an even worse vehicle for bringing about socialism than bourgeois democracies...

Couldn’t disagree more.

 

[Lexicus]

"Worker democracy is cool and all, but what if we create a class of bureaucrats who perform the exact same social role as capitalists, overseeing investment decisions and ensuring the extraction of an economic surplus from a supine, terrorized population, but call it Revolutionary Socialism and blame all criticism of our policies on CIA psyops?"