There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Ha great minds think alike:

[Old_ones]

Peterson has archived the Munk debate:



(The Munk org will eventually restrict it to members only.)

That was hard to watch. Peterson talks at 30,000 feet about everything and comes off as petulant in a few places. I don't think he's all that compelling, but he's probably still the best participant. Dyson believes that he and all other black people live in a space-time warp field where everywhere is 1920s era Alabama, and everyone is either a former slave or their child or grandchild. In Dyson's world everyone black is denied basic humanity and lives under constant threat of lynching. Fry doesn't like word policing and doesn't want the thought police, but isn't particularly critical of any SJ dogma, and is eager to declare that he isn't really a shitlord. Goldberg is the feminist who genuinely believes that feminism is just equality for women, and doesn't really get why people are upset.

So we've got a the Ivory tower guy, the delusional clergymen, the state puffed marshmallow man, and a less haughty version of Emma Watson. Its not a great conversation IMO.

:twatson:

Goldberg and Rev. Grunt did not come to debate the topic but just to smear Peterson.

Team PC refused to talk about tactics or specifics at all, and immediately reframed it as a debate about whether women and POC are forced into identity groups by society, and if they are then why shouldn't we force everyone into identity groups?

For some reason neither of the guys on team shitlord thought to ask why these two want to force unwanted identity markers on everyone else, if they don't like when it is done to them. I genuinely don't get why SJWs think "equality" should mean "oppress everyone" instead of "oppress no one".

Goldberg was smarter about attacking Peterson in that she never went for the jugular but just mentioned some things he had said or done offhand which he disputed. Reverend Blowhard went in hard with petty personal attacks and got hoisted on his own petard for calling Peterson a "mean white man". I guess that is what happens when your debate training consists solely of memorizing a thesaurus.

But I didn't think Peterson's brooding and irritated demeanor through that part of the debate did that much for him either. He seemed unhappy and unsure of how to take the debate in a useful direction.

I wondered a couple of times if the organizers had deliberately picked a woman and POC to be the pro side of the debate and two white men to be the anti side. Was that meant to be a subliminal message about who holds each position? Or were people like CH Sommers and Ayaan Hrsi Ali, who probably would have been more compelling shitlords than poor lost Stephen Fry, busy at the time of the showing?

It could have been worse, I guess. At least they didn't book Faith Goldy.

[MarcusAu]

...

(am I doing the 'bonics correctly?)

If I close my eyes - I could easily imagine your statement as coming from someone in the Black Watch.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Team PC refused to talk about tactics or specifics at all, and immediately reframed it as a debate about whether women and POC are forced into identity groups by society, and if they are then why shouldn't we force everyone into identity groups?

For some reason neither of the guys on team shitlord thought to ask why these two want to force unwanted identity markers on everyone else, if they don't like when it is done to them. I genuinely don't get why SJWs think "equality" should mean "oppress everyone" instead of "oppress no one".

Goldberg was smarter about attacking Peterson in that she never went for the jugular but just mentioned some things he had said or done offhand which he disputed. Reverend Blowhard went in hard with petty personal attacks and got hoisted on his own petard for calling Peterson a "mean white man". I guess that is what happens when your debate training consists solely of memorizing a thesaurus.

But I didn't think Peterson's brooding and irritated demeanor through that part of the debate did that much for him either. He seemed unhappy and unsure of how to take the debate in a useful direction.

I wondered a couple of times if the organizers had deliberately picked a woman and POC to be the pro side of the debate and two white men to be the anti side. Was that meant to be a subliminal message about who holds each position? Or were people like CH Sommers and Ayaan Hrsi Ali, who probably would have been more compelling shitlords than poor lost Stephen Fry, busy at the time of the showing?

It could have been worse, I guess. At least they didn't book Faith Goldy.

Peterson did seem like a fish out of water at times. But I believe he served a very useful purpose as a lightning rod. And he bit Dyson on the snout and wouldn't let go, effectively goading that sack of shit into vicious ad hominem that even elicited boos from the audience.

Sorry, but I think Fry was magnificent (and I find him often scattered.) He elevated himself above the fray, made an impassioned call for reason and humility, and in doing so, exposed the pettiness and mean-spiritedness of the other side. As a bonus, he's a darling of the Left, possesses both a Gay and a Jew Get Out Of Jail Free Card, so by appearing on the 'wrong' side, he shattered the regressive leftist's cone of silence of 'So Say We All'.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Team PC refused to talk about tactics or specifics at all, and immediately reframed it as a debate about whether women and POC are forced into identity groups by society, and if they are then why shouldn't we force everyone into identity groups?

For some reason neither of the guys on team shitlord thought to ask why these two want to force unwanted identity markers on everyone else, if they don't like when it is done to them. I genuinely don't get why SJWs think "equality" should mean "oppress everyone" instead of "oppress no one".

Goldberg was smarter about attacking Peterson in that she never went for the jugular but just mentioned some things he had said or done offhand which he disputed. Reverend Blowhard went in hard with petty personal attacks and got hoisted on his own petard for calling Peterson a "mean white man". I guess that is what happens when your debate training consists solely of memorizing a thesaurus.

But I didn't think Peterson's brooding and irritated demeanor through that part of the debate did that much for him either. He seemed unhappy and unsure of how to take the debate in a useful direction.

I wondered a couple of times if the organizers had deliberately picked a woman and POC to be the pro side of the debate and two white men to be the anti side. Was that meant to be a subliminal message about who holds each position? Or were people like CH Sommers and Ayaan Hrsi Ali, who probably would have been more compelling shitlords than poor lost Stephen Fry, busy at the time of the showing?

It could have been worse, I guess. At least they didn't book Faith Goldy.

Peterson did seem like a fish out of water at times. But I believe he served a very useful purpose as a lightning rod. And he bit Dyson on the snout and wouldn't let go, effectively goading that sack of shit into vicious ad hominem that even elicited boos from the audience.

Sorry, but I think Fry was magnificent (and I find him often scattered.) He elevated himself above the fray, made an impassioned call for reason and humility, and in doing so, exposed the pettiness and mean-spiritedness of the other side. As a bonus, he's a darling of the Left, possesses both a Gay and a Jew Get Out Of Jail Free Card, so by appearing on the 'wrong' side, he shattered the regressive leftist's cone of silence of 'So Say We All'.

[Keating]

Peterson does have some problems:

[SM1957]

Kendrick Lamar invites someone on stage to sing one of his songs. She does....but there is a problem - she's white, and his lyrics contains numerous instances of the word "nigger". Cue booing and a telling-off for the confused woman.

Now, Lamar should be blamed for this. If he didn't want white people singing about "niggers", then don't invite them on stage to sing the fucking songs. The fucking dip-shit.

Oh, and a rich rapper telling off a girl on stage is most certainly "punching down".

DAMN. ;)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-44209141

Kendrick Lamar invites someone on stage to sing one of his songs. She does....but there is a problem - she's white, and his lyrics contains numerous instances of the word "nigger". Cue booing and a telling-off for the confused woman.

Now, Lamar should be blamed for this. If he didn't want white people singing about "niggers", then don't invite them on stage to sing the fucking songs. The fucking dip-shit.

Oh, and a rich rapper telling off a girl on stage is most certainly "punching down".

DAMN. ;)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-44209141

White people go to Kendrick Lamar shows?

I think there is no problem with white people appropriating black culture , such as rap songs, if they pay 50 dollars a ticket to do so.

You are only racist when I am not making any money out of you.

[MarcusAu]

[Shatterface]

Labour suspends male activiswho stood as women's officer 'because he identifies as a woman on Wednesdays'

A local Labour party has suspended a man who previously made it onto the list of candidates for women's officer because he "identifies as a woman on Wednesdays", under their "self-id" rules.

In order to stand for the women-only position, the candidate has to self-identify as a woman, but there are no other stipulations about gender.

David Lewis, a Labour activist, told the Spectator he identifies as a woman "on Wednesdays, between 6.50am when my alarm goes off and around midnight when I go to bed."

Some feminist activists have raised concerns about self-identification, arguing it could cause men to stand on the all-women shortlists the Labour uses to improve gender equality. They have tried to bring a legal challenge against the party, saying where transgender women do not hold a gender recognition certificate, they should not be allowed to stand in posts the law reserves for women.

Mr Lewis said he stood as candidate to: "inform the CLP, and maybe some other people, about what this policy means, about what happens when you say that someone’s gender depends only on what they say and nothing else."

He added: "anyone else’s criticism or questions about my gender identity are just not relevant to the Labour Party at the moment, given the current policy. If I say I’m a woman, I’m a woman."

He does not, however, expect to win, explaining: "I am hoping that my local party will be sensible."

The Telegraph understands that he has been suspended as a Labour member following outcry online.

Dr Sarah Rutherford posted: "I appeal to transactivists to understand, from this example, why so many of us are concerned about the move for self ID. It is already making the sex category of woman meaningless."

Barb Jungr tweeted: "Dear UKLabour I am cancelling my membership you have lost the plot."

Another Twitter user wrote: "I honestly hope this guy gets elected in order to highlight the stupidity of the Labour Party and its attitude to self I.D."

A Labour Party spokesman said: "The Labour Party is committed to upholding the principle of affirmative action for women.

"Anyone attempting to breach Labour Party rules and subvert the intention of All Women Shortlists, women’s officers or minimum quotas for women will be dealt with via our established safeguards, selection procedures and disciplinary measures."

Basingstoke CLP have been contacted for comment.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... ifies/amp/

[Brive1987]

Oh how vibrant we are in thought. “Hate speech”. :bjarte:

Bear, you been moonlighting?

[shoutinghorse]

I wonder what the likes of Keir Hardie, Ramsay MacDonald and Nye Bevan would think of Labour's 'Self Identify as a Woman' policy if they were around today?

[AndrewV69]

You fucker! You nearly got me. Fuck you!

In this case it would have been a mouthful of hot Yuja Cha

http://shop.southchinaseas.ca/assets/im ... rontea.jpg

Close but no cigar. Did I mention FUCK YOU?

[MarcusAu]

Heh. I appreciate your efforts too Andrew.

(Really).

[#32 Rat]

To me, Peterson seems like a new age version of the Promise Keepers.

But, man alive, does he trigger the libs. Metafilter lost it's mind.

Worst Monk debate I've ever seen.

[shoutinghorse]

I understand that Slavic countries have giant surpluses of hot women that look like god candidates for making beautiful babies.

The Nazis considered Slavs to be a race one step removed from the dirty Jew.

[DrokkIt]

Tomorrow, David will be a candidate for election as an office-holder in his Constituency Labour Party in Basingstoke. He is standing for election as women’s officer, a post that Labour rules say can only be held by a woman. David is standing for that post because he is a woman. On Wednesdays, at least. When we spoke yesterday, he put it like this:

“I self-identify as a woman on Wednesdays, between 6.50am when my alarm goes off and around midnight when I go to bed.”

The Basingstoke Labour Party last week accepted the womanness of David and his beard. He is listed as a candidate for election as CLP Women’s Officer, a post that involves encouraging women to join the party and generally speaking for women, their concerns and their experiences.

Quite beautiful. Elfwick level trolling, of the PLP no less.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/m ... s-officer/

James Kirkup of The Spectator has been a consistent and level-headed critic of this horseshit for months.

Anyone else feel like when this house of cards collapses, it's collapsing HARD..?

This level of trolling indicates a lot of people have to be against these ideas - probably a lot of Labour party members included.

[MarcusAu]

To me, Peterson seems like a new age version of the Promise Keepers.

But, man alive, does he trigger the libs. Metafilter lost it's mind.

Worst Monk debate I've ever seen.

Someone has to save the west from the multicultural PC hoards...You Rat!

I initially enjoyed the parts of the vid I have seen (whilst simultaneous not enjoying the parts I did not see)- but I'm re-assessing that initial judgement.

And on the subject on JP...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upGxmPd_fhI

[MarcusAu]

Phil!

Have you done much musical recently?

[MarcusAu]

Anyone else feel like when this house of cards collapses, it's collapsing HARD..?

This level of trolling indicates a lot of people have to be against these ideas - probably a lot of Labour party members included.

Wasn't the point of booting the bi-gender bloke from Basingstoke - so that Labour could avoid (or at least delay) confronting the issue?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Hate Speech

Patreon connects creators to their patrons all over the world. We are a global platform built on promoting creativity, which makes us a very inclusive group. Therefore, there is no room on Patreon for hate speech such as calling for violence, exclusion, or segregation. Hate speech includes serious attacks, or even negative generalizations, of people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability or serious medical conditions. When reviewing an account for a potential hate speech violation, we consider some of the following questions:

Does the content have historical or educational value? For example, we don’t allow the use of the swastika for propaganda and promoting hate, but it would be acceptable to use it in an educational video to talk about Germany under the Third Reich.
Is there a call for violence against a protected class?
Does the creator glorify a group that is known to support ideologies that would be classified as hate speech under this policy?
Is the creator using racial slurs or negative depictions of a protected class?
This list is not exhaustive, but we want to be transparent about how we work in the grey areas between speech and action. There can be a fine line between political comments and hate speech. If you come across what you believe to be hate speech on Patreon, please take the time to report it.

FYI: in the US, sex and race are protected classes. That includes males and whites. But I'm sure no one on patreon is making any negative generalizations about white men.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Anyone else feel like when this house of cards collapses, it's collapsing HARD..?

This level of trolling indicates a lot of people have to be against these ideas - probably a lot of Labour party members included.

Wasn't the point of booting the bi-gender bloke from Basingstoke - so that Labour could avoid (or at least delay) confronting the issue?

The point was probably they feared he'd win.

[SM1957]

I wonder what the likes of Keir Hardie, Ramsay MacDonald and Nye Bevan would think of Labour's 'Self Identify as a Woman' policy if they were around today?

I knew Nye Bevan. and he would have shat himself.

[feathers]

https://voiceofeurope.com/2018/05/germa ... -c.twitter

At least they aren't teaching them to make potato salad.

Why not? They already know how to make Salaat.

[feathers]

The lyrics don't have any niggers in them but plenty of niggas. I have been told most of my life that these are two totally different words. I don't care if that is true or not. I just want people to be consistent.

You see, here is where you need Steers to explain. Admit it, you have a steers-shaped hole in your heart.

[DrokkIt]

Anyone else feel like when this house of cards collapses, it's collapsing HARD..?

This level of trolling indicates a lot of people have to be against these ideas - probably a lot of Labour party members included.

Wasn't the point of booting the bi-gender bloke from Basingstoke - so that Labour could avoid (or at least delay) confronting the issue?

Probably. I'm done paying much attention to Labour these days tbh, it's a clusterfuck of bad direction.

[feathers]

Phil!

Have you done much musical recently?

Ah oui, the hills are alive with the sound of trash metal.

[shoutinghorse]

Clever :lol:

[SM1957]

Anyone else feel like when this house of cards collapses, it's collapsing HARD..?

This level of trolling indicates a lot of people have to be against these ideas - probably a lot of Labour party members included.

Wasn't the point of booting the bi-gender bloke from Basingstoke - so that Labour could avoid (or at least delay) confronting the issue?

The point was probably they feared he'd win.

For security checks, Labour demand that the gender you identify with is the same as on your passport.

Well, that is transphobic.


https://order-order.com/2018/05/23/labo ... -identify/

[SM1957]

Jordan Peterson's whole shtick is based on 'Sort out your own life'.

This goes against the entire Left cry of 'We're victims. It's your fault and your problem'. No wonder they hate him.

[MarcusAu]

Jordan Peterson's whole shtick is based on 'Sort out your own life'.

This goes against the entire Left cry of 'We're victims. It's your fault and your problem'. No wonder they hate him.

The guy has over 500 hours of online lectures (not to mention other works). If his 'whole shtick' can be boiled down to one line - then he must be one of the most loquacious fuckers to have ever existed.

Either that - or you are selling him short.

[KiwiInOz]

I'm not sure whether I am more disturbed by the censorship or the depiction of gender neutral menstruation.

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/edb2da61 ... f85c7fcda7

[John D]

To me, Peterson seems like a new age version of the Promise Keepers.

But, man alive, does he trigger the libs. Metafilter lost it's mind.

Worst Monk debate I've ever seen.

Someone has to save the west from the multicultural PC hoards...You Rat!

I initially enjoyed the parts of the vid I have seen (whilst simultaneous not enjoying the parts I did not see)- but I'm re-assessing that initial judgement.

And on the subject on JP...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upGxmPd_fhI

Just to add a little to the discussion. I listened to "Crime and Punishment" on CD. I think Peterson is right on this one.... It is one of the best novels I have ever read (or in this case listened to). I am happy I listened to a reading because those damn Russian names are killers to read. I started reading it years ago, but it was a struggle so I only read a few chapters.

Here is the version. It was very well read.

So, Peterson is making a point when he says that atheists don't act like atheist. I tend to agree with him and I have been struggling with this idea for many years. I have read Harris, Dennett, Dawkins, and Hitchens on this topic and there is something incomplete in their definition and concept of religion. I call myself a Christian Atheist and this makes perfect sense to me.

I really good read is Boyer's "Religion Explained". It uses a phenomenological approach to religion. Very insightful. Harris had Boyer on one of his pod casts... but all they talked about was mind altering experiences being religious (which is not such an interesting topic to me).

I don't think there is anything supernatural to our consciousness. Peterson tends to say that a supernatural explanation cannot be dismissed (because we have no good scientific explanation of the phenomena of consciousness). I guess it doesn't really matter very much. Solving this puzzle is a great curiosity, but it really doesn't help us solve the big question... the question of how we should live our lives. Religious and Mythic metaphorical models actually do help solve the problem.

Anyway... and finally. If you like phenomenology you may be interested in Thomas Metazinger's "Ego Tunnel". This is also a very good read where Metzinger describes the features of consciousness.

[MarcusAu]

Without god all things are possible.

With god all things are possible.

I consider both to be true (metaphorically speaking).

[Really?]

PZ's shitlord lawyer on Kendrick Lamar-gate:

[Shatterface]

Kirkup again:

The Catch 22 of Labour’s gender policy

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/t ... er-policy/

[MarcusAu]

Kirkup again:

The Catch 22 of Labour’s gender policy

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/t ... er-policy/

First taste is free - but you have register to read this one.

[MarcusAu]

Speaking of the death of British culture...

...I do not recall when I last saw some one deliberately pour their tea into the saucer and drink it from there.

[DrokkIt]

Jordan Peterson's whole shtick is based on 'Sort out your own life'.

This goes against the entire Left cry of 'We're victims. It's your fault and your problem'. No wonder they hate him.

An inverse of this position is that this resonates with the entire Right cry of "everything that happens to you is down to you". No wonder they love him.

Neither position is true or particularly useful. I think Peterson isn't really making a universal statement - it's a conditional value judgement based on what one can do in one's current situation. However when it's stripped of it's context and re-uploaded to youtube with the title JORDAN PETERSON DESTORYS LEFTIST BULLSHIT or whatever, that distinction becomes a little but lost to say the least.

[SM1957]

Speaking of the death of British culture...

...I do not recall when I last saw some one deliberately pour their tea into the saucer and drink it from there.

I can . About 1979. My dad used to do it.

[Guest_3bc53337]

First taste is free - but you have register to read this one.

Open in an Incognito window (Chrome) or equivalent in your browser.

[Tigzy]

Labour suspends male activiswho stood as women's officer 'because he identifies as a woman on Wednesdays'

A local Labour party has suspended a man who previously made it onto the list of candidates for women's officer because he "identifies as a woman on Wednesdays", under their "self-id" rules.

In order to stand for the women-only position, the candidate has to self-identify as a woman, but there are no other stipulations about gender.

David Lewis, a Labour activist, told the Spectator he identifies as a woman "on Wednesdays, between 6.50am when my alarm goes off and around midnight when I go to bed."

Some feminist activists have raised concerns about self-identification, arguing it could cause men to stand on the all-women shortlists the Labour uses to improve gender equality. They have tried to bring a legal challenge against the party, saying where transgender women do not hold a gender recognition certificate, they should not be allowed to stand in posts the law reserves for women.

Mr Lewis said he stood as candidate to: "inform the CLP, and maybe some other people, about what this policy means, about what happens when you say that someone’s gender depends only on what they say and nothing else."

He added: "anyone else’s criticism or questions about my gender identity are just not relevant to the Labour Party at the moment, given the current policy. If I say I’m a woman, I’m a woman."

He does not, however, expect to win, explaining: "I am hoping that my local party will be sensible."

The Telegraph understands that he has been suspended as a Labour member following outcry online.

Dr Sarah Rutherford posted: "I appeal to transactivists to understand, from this example, why so many of us are concerned about the move for self ID. It is already making the sex category of woman meaningless."

Barb Jungr tweeted: "Dear UKLabour I am cancelling my membership you have lost the plot."

Another Twitter user wrote: "I honestly hope this guy gets elected in order to highlight the stupidity of the Labour Party and its attitude to self I.D."

A Labour Party spokesman said: "The Labour Party is committed to upholding the principle of affirmative action for women.

"Anyone attempting to breach Labour Party rules and subvert the intention of All Women Shortlists, women’s officers or minimum quotas for women will be dealt with via our established safeguards, selection procedures and disciplinary measures."

Basingstoke CLP have been contacted for comment.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... ifies/amp/

Hmmm. I'm guessing they didn't take xis claims of being a woman seriously, then. In which case, Labour will need to modify their stance - simply self-identifying as a woman isn't enough. One has to seriously self-identify as a woman; you have to really mean it, guys - uh, gals.

So in a sense, Lewis has won - he's made his point and effected some change. Of course, aside from egregious cases like this, there's no real way to be sure if some dude really means it if they claim to be a woman. After all, if we're not meant to take Lewis' claim seriously, they why should we be obliged to trust someone like Muscato, that fat, hairy tattooed thing prancing around boutiques with his bald pate shining under the lights?

[SM1957]

Jordan Peterson's whole shtick is based on 'Sort out your own life'.

This goes against the entire Left cry of 'We're victims. It's your fault and your problem'. No wonder they hate him.

An inverse of this position is that this resonates with the entire Right cry of "everything that happens to you is down to you". No wonder they love him.

Neither position is true or particularly useful. I think Peterson isn't really making a universal statement - it's a conditional value judgement based on what one can do in one's current situation. However when it's stripped of it's context and re-uploaded to youtube with the title JORDAN PETERSON DESTORYS LEFTIST BULLSHIT or whatever, that distinction becomes a little but lost to say the least.

Jordan Peterson's whole shtick is based on 'Sort out your own life'.

This goes against the entire Left cry of 'We're victims. It's your fault and your problem'. No wonder they hate him.

An inverse of this position is that this resonates with the entire Right cry of "everything that happens to you is down to you". No wonder they love him.

Neither position is true or particularly useful. I think Peterson isn't really making a universal statement - it's a conditional value judgement based on what one can do in one's current situation. However when it's stripped of it's context and re-uploaded to youtube with the title JORDAN PETERSON DESTORYS LEFTIST BULLSHIT or whatever, that distinction becomes a little but lost to say the least.

Quite right. Jordan Peterson is conservative with a small c. He is wary of big social changes. Big social changes haven't always worked out too well in the past. Some did though - like the civil rights movement.

[Guest_3bc53337]

On acting/not acting like an atheist, I think the Peterson/Dillahunty debate is interesting. Peterson started asking Dillahunty what his morality is based on, Dillahunty gave several premises (don;t kill, don;t throw Sam Harris off the stage, etc.) and Peterson asked why? Dillahunty got mad, apparently because he thought they were self-evident, but I think Peterson meant how did you pick those premises? I think Peterson would say it is because of the Judeo Christian tradition that lead to individual rights, so Dillahunty did not really come to those premises by reason alone.

And that is the significance of Crime and Punishment for Peterson. The murderer used reason to conclude that killing an old woman would be net good, when in fact it did not. So there has to be something else besides reason. I don't think Peterson thinks there must be a supernatural being, just a recognition of the significance of the mythology.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I've started watching parts of Peterson's appearance at Lafayette College. (At 2+ hours, it's only slightly shorter than my brief tenure as a student there.) In it, he provides more explanation on his thoughts on religion, including a definition thereof (in the Q & A). Also a very good discussion of IQ among other good stuff. He also follows Jung in finding great meaning and something spooky going on with dreams -- completely silly imo.

[SM1957]

On acting/not acting like an atheist, I think the Peterson/Dillahunty debate is interesting. Peterson started asking Dillahunty what his morality is based on, Dillahunty gave several premises (don;t kill, don;t throw Sam Harris off the stage, etc.) and Peterson asked why? Dillahunty got mad, apparently because he thought they were self-evident, but I think Peterson meant how did you pick those premises? I think Peterson would say it is because of the Judeo Christian tradition that lead to individual rights, so Dillahunty did not really come to those premises by reason alone.

And that is the significance of Crime and Punishment for Peterson. The murderer used reason to conclude that killing an old woman would be net good, when in fact it did not. So there has to be something else besides reason. I don't think Peterson thinks there must be a supernatural being, just a recognition of the significance of the mythology.

Has Peterson read Crime and Punishment?

Raskolnikov knew that killing the old woman was wrong, but justified it because society judged Napoleon a great person , even though Napoleon had done much worse things.

According to Raskolnikov, what sets great men apart was their willingness to break moral laws.

Raskolnikov breaks the law, and is haunted by a guilty conscience, which means he does not consider himself to be a hero, because he feels guilty.

[MarcusAu]

Speaking of the death of British culture...

...I do not recall when I last saw some one deliberately pour their tea into the saucer and drink it from there.

I can . About 1979. My dad used to do it.

Bless.

[shoutinghorse]

Speaking of the death of British culture...

...I do not recall when I last saw some one deliberately pour their tea into the saucer and drink it from there.

I can . About 1979. My dad used to do it.

Ha Ha, mine too, he also used to suck up all the gravy on his dinner plate and then spend the next few minutes sucking food out of his teeth. My parents were an odd couple at times, both heavy drinkers and smokers (although my dad did give up the 'fags' in the early 80's) who grew up during the war and had this make do and mend waste nothing mentality, he used to make this big thing when the butter dish was empty, he would tut tut and blame everyone for not noticing, then make a big show of unwrapping the new butter and scraping every last bit from the grease paper and transferring it to the dish. No one dared say a word while he was doing it, the irritation on his face told us we'd get a tongue lashing if we did.
He seemed to have a thing about butter, if I or my brother ever asked for someone to pass the butter dish he would explode at our imperfect pronunciation, we lived in Kent (S.E.England) with a very distinctive Cockney like 'estuary' accent and butter would be said as 'Bu' 'a' missing out the T sound. ten minutes later the hypocrite would pronounce it in exactly the same way. He was basically a cunt.

Anyway, just thought I'd share that little anecdote.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

On acting/not acting like an atheist, I think the Peterson/Dillahunty debate is interesting. Peterson started asking Dillahunty what his morality is based on, Dillahunty gave several premises (don;t kill, don;t throw Sam Harris off the stage, etc.) and Peterson asked why? Dillahunty got mad, apparently because he thought they were self-evident, but I think Peterson meant how did you pick those premises? I think Peterson would say it is because of the Judeo Christian tradition that lead to individual rights, so Dillahunty did not really come to those premises by reason alone.

And that is the significance of Crime and Punishment for Peterson. The murderer used reason to conclude that killing an old woman would be net good, when in fact it did not. So there has to be something else besides reason. I don't think Peterson thinks there must be a supernatural being, just a recognition of the significance of the mythology.

Has Peterson read Crime and Punishment?

Raskolnikov knew that killing the old woman was wrong, but justified it because society judged Napoleon a great person , even though Napoleon had done much worse things.

According to Raskolnikov, what sets great men apart was their willingness to break moral laws.

Raskolnikov breaks the law, and is haunted by a guilty conscience, which means he does not consider himself to be a hero, because he feels guilty.

Aww Jesus ...

[John D]

On acting/not acting like an atheist, I think the Peterson/Dillahunty debate is interesting. Peterson started asking Dillahunty what his morality is based on, Dillahunty gave several premises (don;t kill, don;t throw Sam Harris off the stage, etc.) and Peterson asked why? Dillahunty got mad, apparently because he thought they were self-evident, but I think Peterson meant how did you pick those premises? I think Peterson would say it is because of the Judeo Christian tradition that lead to individual rights, so Dillahunty did not really come to those premises by reason alone.

And that is the significance of Crime and Punishment for Peterson. The murderer used reason to conclude that killing an old woman would be net good, when in fact it did not. So there has to be something else besides reason. I don't think Peterson thinks there must be a supernatural being, just a recognition of the significance of the mythology.

Has Peterson read Crime and Punishment?

Raskolnikov knew that killing the old woman was wrong, but justified it because society judged Napoleon a great person , even though Napoleon had done much worse things.

According to Raskolnikov, what sets great men apart was their willingness to break moral laws.

Raskolnikov breaks the law, and is haunted by a guilty conscience, which means he does not consider himself to be a hero, because he feels guilty.

I think you are simplifying. Raskolnikov goes through many changes in the novel finally finding a kind of forgiveness through love in the end. His article helps carry this idea through the story. R didn't even know the article was published which supports the theme that R does not understand himself or how morality works. R is telling himself a lie which is supported by what he thinks is "pure reason". Pure reason convinces R that he can be a super kind of man (even better than Napoleon) by using reason instead of tradition to discover virtuous action. It does not work and this is proven in the most disastrous of way.

This is the same thing Matt Dillicunty is saying. Matt claims that reason make his ethics "self evident". This is not true and Dostoyevsky proves this in "Crime and Punishment".

The book is one of my favorites partly because I have been much like R during parts of my life. And further, my wife has behaved much like Sonya (but my wife is not a prostitute... haha). It is a mystery in the book as to why Sonya loves R so much... but I can tell you... my wife love me in much the same way. It kind of freaks me out that Dostoyevsky knew so much about my life.

I think this book is genius.... and I agree with Peterson on this one... 100%

[John D]

and now you made me cry because I was thinking about how much my wife loves me.... shit. No crying at lunchtime in the office.

[comhcinc]

Speaking of the death of British culture...

...I do not recall when I last saw some one deliberately pour their tea into the saucer and drink it from there.

I can . About 1979. My dad used to do it.

....what the hell is wrong with you people?

[SM1957]

Has Peterson read Crime and Punishment?

Raskolnikov knew that killing the old woman was wrong, but justified it because society judged Napoleon a great person , even though Napoleon had done much worse things.

According to Raskolnikov, what sets great men apart was their willingness to break moral laws.

Raskolnikov breaks the law, and is haunted by a guilty conscience, which means he does not consider himself to be a hero, because he feels guilty.

Aww Jesus ...

I agree with Peterson that Crime and Punishment is the greatest novel ever written. The Brothers Karamazov being the second greatest.

And Peterson does a good job on that video.

What Peterson might mention is that Raskolnikov felt that his evil was on too small a scale to be the sort of thing where the ends justifies the means.

Napoleon lost entire armies, while he only killed an old woman in a brutal murder.

It was left to the Communists to think big......

[Kirbmarc]

Jordan Peterson's whole shtick is based on 'Sort out your own life'.

This goes against the entire Left cry of 'We're victims. It's your fault and your problem'. No wonder they hate him.

An inverse of this position is that this resonates with the entire Right cry of "everything that happens to you is down to you". No wonder they love him.

Neither position is true or particularly useful. I think Peterson isn't really making a universal statement - it's a conditional value judgement based on what one can do in one's current situation. However when it's stripped of it's context and re-uploaded to youtube with the title JORDAN PETERSON DESTORYS LEFTIST BULLSHIT or whatever, that distinction becomes a little but lost to say the least.

The right talks about "personal responsibility" when they want to shut down any discussion of non-personal factors in social issues (the classic "poor people are lazy and irresponsible and have to raise themselves out of poverty" which means that all forms of welfare are "entitlement").

The SocJus takes sociological concepts (like "privilege", which is a measure of GROUP AVERAGES) and turns them into matters of personal identity ("you, as a person, have White Privilege and so are always the Oppressor/Aggressor!").

The right treats social groups like individuals and the SocJus treats individuals like social groups.

[MarcusAu]

I don't think I would be a christian just by reading the right (good?) book.

Which is not to say that I don't have an appreciation of literature...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jisfAwMOhrQ

[Kirbmarc]

Personal responsibility and social factors aren't always mutually exclusive, either. Being fat IS something that CAN be dealt with through changes in personal lifestyle. But brushing off an obesity epidemic with "they're all lazy and irrational" obscures things like the fact that cheap food is unhealthy, and that a lot of people eat cheap food because people their choices are limited by their income and lack of cooking skills, or of time to cook.

Saying that society is "fatphobic" and that fat people are poor snowflakes oppressed by the Thinarchy isn't going to help anyone, but neither is sweeping the issues of cheap, fat food under the carpet.

[SM1957]

Personal responsibility and social factors aren't always mutually exclusive, either. Being fat IS something that CAN be dealt with through changes in personal lifestyle. But brushing off an obesity epidemic with "they're all lazy and irrational" obscures things like the fact that cheap food is unhealthy, and that a lot of people eat cheap food because people their choices are limited by their income and lack of cooking skills, or of time to cook.

Saying that society is "fatphobic" and that fat people are poor snowflakes oppressed by the Thinarchy isn't going to help anyone, but neither is sweeping the issues of cheap, fat food under the carpet.

I don't recall many fat people during the Great Depression. Poverty does not cause obesity.

Time to cook and lack of cooking skills are much bigger factors. Women who go out to work don't spend as much time in the kitchen as women who stay at home.

[Kirbmarc]

Sociological concepts are kind of similar to temperature. Temperature can be defined as the average kinetic energy at a molecular level It's stupid to even ask what's the temperature of a single molecule. It's a nonsensical question. The molecule has its own specific kinetic energy, but it has no temperature on its own.

And yet temperature is relatively easy to measure, because differences in temperature causes measurably different effects. Nobody would say that it's pointless to discuss the temperature of a room if we don't know that exact kinetic energy of every molecule in the room.

Similarly privilege is a useful sociological concept with measurable effects, which can be defined as differences in averages about certain factors between social groups. It's not pointless to discuss privilege if we don't consider all individuals in the group. However it's kind of useless to discuss privilege in terms of individuals, unless you're referring to specific difference in a measurable factor ("person X is richer/went to a better school/had less legal troubles than person Y").

It's nonsensical to base individual preferences, or even worse a pecking order of (self)righteousness, on privilege, almost as much as it is wanting to compare molecules by their temperature.

[Kirbmarc]

Personal responsibility and social factors aren't always mutually exclusive, either. Being fat IS something that CAN be dealt with through changes in personal lifestyle. But brushing off an obesity epidemic with "they're all lazy and irrational" obscures things like the fact that cheap food is unhealthy, and that a lot of people eat cheap food because people their choices are limited by their income and lack of cooking skills, or of time to cook.

Saying that society is "fatphobic" and that fat people are poor snowflakes oppressed by the Thinarchy isn't going to help anyone, but neither is sweeping the issues of cheap, fat food under the carpet.

I don't recall many fat people during the Great Depression. Poverty does not cause obesity.

Time to cook and lack of cooking skills are much bigger factors. Women who go out to work don't spend as much time in the kitchen as women who stay at home.

There were no cheap sources of unhealthy food during the Great Depression. There are now.

[SM1957]

Personal responsibility and social factors aren't always mutually exclusive, either. Being fat IS something that CAN be dealt with through changes in personal lifestyle. But brushing off an obesity epidemic with "they're all lazy and irrational" obscures things like the fact that cheap food is unhealthy, and that a lot of people eat cheap food because people their choices are limited by their income and lack of cooking skills, or of time to cook.

Saying that society is "fatphobic" and that fat people are poor snowflakes oppressed by the Thinarchy isn't going to help anyone, but neither is sweeping the issues of cheap, fat food under the carpet.

I don't recall many fat people during the Great Depression. Poverty does not cause obesity.

Time to cook and lack of cooking skills are much bigger factors. Women who go out to work don't spend as much time in the kitchen as women who stay at home.

There were no cheap sources of unhealthy food during the Great Depression. There are now.

Bread and dripping was a healthy and expensive food in the 1930s? Chips (French fries) had not been invented?

Didn't Popeye eat spinach while his fat friend ate hamburgers? Hamburgers are not recent.....

[Kirbmarc]

Healthy diet costs three times that of junk food

Researchers examined almost 100 popular items of food, which is defined under Government criteria as healthy or not.

They found that 1,000 calories made up from healthy items, such as lean salmon, yoghurts and tomatoes, cost an average of £7.49 in 2012.

The same calorie intake from less healthy items, such as pizza, beef burgers, and doughnuts, could be purchased for an average of £2.50.

The gap between the two 1,000 calorie baskets is now £4.99, the research found, when ten years ago it was £3.88.

Cheap unhealthy food makes healthy food choices much less likely

Scientists from Drexel's Dornsife School of Public Health made this conclusion following an investigation on the effect that price difference has on diet quality in the US.

They examined data from 2,765 people, which was linked to food prices at supermarkets in their neighbourhoods.

The price of groceries was broken down into two groups: healthier and unhealthier. Healthier foods included dairy products, fruit and vegetables, while unhealthy foods included salty snacks, sweets and sugary beverages.

Participants' diet quality was calculated using the Healthy Eating Index-2010 (HEI-2010), developed by the United States Department of Agriculture.

The researchers discovered that, on average, healthier foods were nearly twice as expensive as unhealthy packaged foods, and as the gap between neighbourhood prices increased, participants were more likely to eat unhealthily.

For every 14 per cent increase in the healthy-to-unhealthy price ratio, the odds of participants eating a healthy diet dropped by 24 per cent, even after accounting for factors such as age, sex, income and education.

This impact was particularly strong among people in the middle ranges of income and wealth, and those with higher education.

"We originally expected to find the largest impact among individuals in the lowest wealth/income group. However, given the price gap that we found, healthy food may be too expensive for the lowest socioeconomic status group even at its most affordable," said co-lead author David Kern, PhD.