The biggest problem with the law is not the law itself, it's that gender identity and expression is based heavily on feelings and not a physical existence. It is also unfair for people to assume that others can gauge those feelings. It's a mess of a law that is disturbingly vague in some ways. Imo, this whole thing is a mess and reeks of people with identity issues that should be seeking professional help to deal with their states of confusion rather than going "REEEEEEEEEEEEEE" at everyone who doesn't care about what these individuals want to be called.
First, I likely have a stronger sense of Identity because I am not an American by birth and only arrived here as a teen.
Second, I'd argue that American White people being individualists or individuals is a major weakness in the game. You may choose to be an individualist liberal all you like, but the others won't play the game that way.
The reason individualist libertarianism doesn't work is that it is incredibly easy to cheat the system. Sure, perhaps if everyone blinds themselves to groups, to ethnicity, to gender, to class, it would all work out. Partiality to in-group, as opposed to out-groups would be morally illegitimate because there ultimately is no real ‘us’ and ‘them’ in a strictly individualist liberal worldview. Therefore, we have to come up with a way of dealing with one-another – it’s not ‘us’ and them, it’s just ‘you’ and ‘me’. We’re just individuals. And in theory we would simply interact in transactional ways, everyone leaving each other alone and interacting as you would like.
But that never holds up because there is a better way to play that game. To take advantage of it. The individualist Libertarian, AnCap or Liberal game blinds its players to collective groups cheating that game, and the only way to save the game of individualism is to exclude the cheats. But that is racism, fascism, bigotry, and ultimately requires a much bigger state to stop people from acting a certain way. What is to stop someone from only renting to members of their distinct tribe? From only hiring people in a certain area and using the mechanics of social shame and ostricism from effectively shutting people out. You may for example treat me as an individual, but you can't be certain I won't play by a different set of rules and within the context of that game, I've effectively cheated or swindled you out of it. When you come to me expecting reciprocity for treating me as an individual, being open, you might find I'm more interested in hiring my cousin, or really only renting to Welsh speakers with my same last (maiden) name, or only people from the town I was born in, or maybe just others born in the UK more broadly. You may treat me as an individual but I may not reciprocate that treatment.
You might think to exclude me for this behaviour, but then you are not an individualist, to stop the cheat you have to cheat the game yourself.
On MMO-C we learn that Anti-Fascism is locking arms with corporations, the State Department and agreeing with the CIA, But opposing the CIA and corporate America, and thinking Jews have a right to buy land and can expect tenants to pay rent THAT is ultra-Fash Nazism. Bellingcat is an MI6/CIA cut out. Clyburn Truther.
The bill is just extending the same protections it grants to homosexuals and racial groups to trans people. This is not unique language. It already applies to those other groups, so can you show me how applying this language to those other groups has created some fascist dictatorship in Canada where you aren't allowed to say certain words?
"stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
-ynnady
Or I have looked at how neoliberalism (and therefore globalism) has been the dominant ideology for several decades, and I realize that end-stage neoliberalism leads to disaster.
I think that the 'SJWs' are just shills for neoliberalism without knowing it. I think that most people on this board who are of the left fall into the same category. Are you any different?
Most people would rather die than think, and most people do. -Bertrand Russell
Before the camps, I regarded the existence of nationality as something that shouldn’t be noticed - nationality did not really exist, only humanity. But in the camps one learns: if you belong to a successful nation you are protected and you survive. If you are part of universal humanity - too bad for you -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
This is exactly what I was just talking about with his vague bullshit sounding different to everyone. You are ignoring the whole part about similarities to humans and serotonin. You are ignoring that he is arguing this should inform how we structure human society.
- - - Updated - - -
Keep going with the insults, but let it never be forgotten that I made the last actual points in this argument. You just descended into whining and insults.
"stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
-ynnady
Anyone who wants to make themselves like a disingenuous idiot on national television in this day in age is free to do so, but they shouldn't expect there not to be repercussions when they bring on a controversial and extremely educated individual and basically get stood up and made to look like a fool for pushing their own agenda. Basically, Newman should have known what she was getting herself into, and by all indications from Peterson, she went from being genuine to a deranged lunatic at the drop of a hat. News is often about sensationalism, and that was all she was doing was trying to sensationalize and rationalize her agenda.
Only he didn't make that argument.
He argued hierarchies were a natural product of evolution, not a human construct. He used lobsters as evidence of this argument in that they adhere to hierarchies and we are separated from them by hundreds of millions of years of evolution.
Useful is a relative term. As I said in a previous post, it is an excellent survival strategy. Ultimately even Peterson tries to play the individualist libertarian game, but its really hollow and anyone who looks too deeply into it will see that. And yes, those types, the SJW's are very "End of History" esque in a respect, as is Peterson and the Individualist Libertarians. But it's a flawed game because group dynamics always come into play.
The reason individualist libertarianism doesn't work is that it is incredibly easy to cheat the system. Sure, perhaps if everyone blinds themselves to groups, to ethnicity, to gender, to class, it would all work out. Partiality to in-group, as opposed to out-groups, would be morally illegitimate because there ultimately is no real ‘us’ and ‘them’ in a strict individualist liberal worldview. Therefore, we have to come up with a way of dealing with one-another – it’s not ‘us’ and them, it’s just ‘you’ and ‘me’. We’re just individuals. And in theory, we would simply interact in transactional ways, everyone leaving each other alone and interacting as you would like.
But that never holds up because there is a better way to play that game. To take advantage of it. The individualist Libertarian, AnCap or Liberal game blinds its players to collective groups cheating that game, and the only way to save the game of individualism is to exclude the cheats. But that is racism, fascism, bigotry, and ultimately requires a much bigger state to stop people from acting a certain way. What is to stop someone from only renting to members of their distinct tribe? From only hiring people in a certain area and using the mechanics of social shame and ostracism from effectively shutting people out. You may, for example, treat me as an individual, but you can't be certain I won't play by a different set of rules and within the context of that game, I've effectively cheated or swindled you out of it. When you come to me expecting reciprocity for treating me as an individual, being open, you might find I'm more interested in hiring my cousin, or really only renting to Welsh speakers with my same last (maiden) name, or only people from the town I was born in, or maybe just others born in the UK more broadly. You may treat me as an individual but I may not reciprocate that treatment.
You might think to exclude me from this behaviour, but then you are not an individualist, to stop the cheat you have to cheat the game yourself. The only way out of the trap is for either everyone to be as the same as physically possible, OR to accept you won't have perfect Liberalism, OR you will need a very powerful state to stop people from acting as they do.
On MMO-C we learn that Anti-Fascism is locking arms with corporations, the State Department and agreeing with the CIA, But opposing the CIA and corporate America, and thinking Jews have a right to buy land and can expect tenants to pay rent THAT is ultra-Fash Nazism. Bellingcat is an MI6/CIA cut out. Clyburn Truther.
Therein lies the problem, they will go to great lengths to try and justify their ignorance. That's why people who admit to it, are already ahead of the game. Now, there's some racists who will admit to their racism, and be proud of it... willing to justify it at any costs. Then there are the select few who hold that view, but are quasi-ashamed of it at some level. Those people can be saved. The others are beyond fixing.
Pointing out you aren’t very bright isn’t so much an insult as an observation.
You couldn’t even grasp that neo-Marxists might in some way not hold the exact same ideology as Marxists, even though holding the exact same ideology would render the prefix neo- obsolete.
And Peterson isn’t saying we should live like lobsters, he’s pointing out that hierarchies are present in nature, so that claiming they are entirely a human social construct, as some do, is wrong.
"And I use the lobster as an example because the lobster–we divulged from lobsters in evolutionary history about 350 million years ago–common ancestor. And lobsters exist in hierarchies and they have a nervous system atuned to the hierarchy. And that nervous system runs on serotonin like our nervous system. And the nervous system of the lobster and of human beings is so similar that anti-depressants work on lobsters."
"stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
-ynnady
Specifically, and bear with me because this is a pedantic point but I'm tired of people misrepresenting me (ironically enough, in a thread complaining about an interviewer doing [i]exactly that), but I said that kind of behavior was abusive.
Whether it qualifies as actionable abuse depends on other context.
For instance, calling your wife a "cunt" once, laughing, because she kicked your ass at Street Fighter, that's "abusive", but not abuse. If there's a pattern of you using that behaviour to assault and harass her, that is abuse. Whether specific actions amount to abuse is a different standard than what I was talking about.
Someone using abusive language isn't automatically something that needs action; it depends on context (like most things).
Because your neo-marxist bullshit is meaningless. It is a meaningless term used to get out of having to do the work of intellectually defeating opponents. Nothing you described made any sense. You said identity politics is neo-marxism, even though marxism was explicitly about class and identity politics is used just as much by the right as the left. It's devoid of any coherent definition. It's just "LEFTY STUFF BAD NEO MARXISM I DONT LIKE"
"stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
-ynnady