Aftermath of the bigoted channel 4 interview and other sensationalist muckrakers.

[Theodarzna]

I think you are confusing Libertarians who don't think the state should act on behalf of the collect good, from Liberals who many times do. I think for example that the state should prevent, legally speaking, from blatant service discrimination based on race, just as an example.

You don't have to be ALL personal freedom or ALL state control, you can be a mixture of both based on what makes sense.

I think thee in lies a problem. We are either granting the State incredible levels of power to dictate who our friends, relations and associates are, which is itself a massive hazard. What is the border of discriminatory behavior? If we restrict it entirely, than freedom of association is basically dead. And thus when the Feminist bleats on that she is entitled to you finding her fat ass self attractive or a Trans activist argues not dating and fucking her is discrimination, well, then they have a point.

Or the "Bake the Cake Bigot!" crowd.

[Venant]

What "in-group preferences" are those that should be maintained? It sure sounds like you are referencing xenophobia and racism, yet are dancing around the subject.

I'd much rather judge people by their actions, not by the actions of others. I do this, because that's how I would prefer to be judged.

I do not recognize the terms 'xenophobia' and 'racism', as those are moral pronouncements that have no place in a philosophical discussion.

You are confusing your own personal morality of how you want to live your life with what is most logical for society. You might think that you should personally give every rattlesnake you come across the benefit of the doubt and try to make friends with it, but if that way of thinking proves fatal then the damages are limited only to the person who made that decision. If you decided to universalize that way of thinking into an ideology that made people hug rattlesnakes, and those who refused to were branded 'Ophidiophobes' and 'speciesists', then it would result in catastrophe for many people who were forced into accepting this system.

Of course, the best system would be one that maintained the freedom to engage in in-group preference against rattlesnakes, while also allowing people who want to associate with rattle snakes to do so. Of course, what you will say is that such a system discriminates against rattlesnakes, to which the response is that the same system would apply to them too, allowing them to have their own groups and their own choice of free association.

[Orange Joe]

bigot bullies female interviewer. there's the tldr.

Did you even watch it? Yeah no, she bullied herself.

[Kalis]

"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."

You don’t understand what Peterson is saying.

An animal we are distantly related to has hierarchies, as do animals we are more closely related to, so to claim that human hierarchies are a social construct doesn’t explain why similar hierarchies are found in other creatures. His argument is that hierarchies are therefore likely to be inherent within humans and simply a product of evolution.

[Endus]

But people disagree that calling someone by something other than what they want to be called is inherently abuse.

Abusive. I literally just drew that distinction. I know it's a tiny niggling little pedantic point, but it's an important distinction here, because I'm not saying anyone who misgenders someone is automatically an abuser who should face legal penalties.

And some people don't think that believing that black people are essentially a form of non-human great ape is dehumanizing and racist. It doesn't make them right, and it doesn't make their views not-racist, no matter how rational or reasonable they think they're being.

[Theodarzna]

It's about weighing pros and cons when it comes down to it, really.

The con of having a society with a majority race population that can control a minorities access to food, shelter, water, etc. with no penalty outweights the pro of having more personal freedom and more freedom of association. and it's not like that society is a hypothetical, because we lived it.

The con is also that you are consigning to oblivion that minority culture since you've forbidden them from associating and forming any kind of links or bonds that might cause prejudice.

[Shalcker]

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.

He didn't actually say that; that was interviewer's claim he actually denied.

He just said that similar mechanisms can (and do) contribute to human hierarchies. Aren't the only reason for them, but, as far as i see, in theoretical "freedom-of-opportunity" ideal-society Peterson would assume that hierarchies will, naturally, still be present.

Not because it is right, but because it uses natural structures of human society with natural inclinations and preferences.

You could conceivably replace them with more complex social constructs that would avoid hierarchies in current advanced human society; result wouldn't be natural, however, and would necessarily require repression of those natural tendencies.

[I Push Buttons]

"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."

Are you dense?

He is arguing they adhere to hierarchies for the same reason we adhere to hierarchies (chemical processes in the brain). Not that because we have similar brain chemistry, we should emulate lobsters...

I can't tell if you are being intentionally obtuse or if you genuinely lack the capacity to understand this simple concept...

[Endus]

Okay but calling a black person an ape is obviously insulting to everyone, and literally dehumanizing.

Calling someone who was identified as a girl for 70 years a girl isn't obviously insulting to everyone, or even most people.

This is where we dig into how the target experiences the statement (if being misgendered upset them, in some way), and what the intent of the speaker was (if they knew the individual for 70 years as a female and weren't aware they had transitioned, say, rather than knowing they had transitioned and saying they don't care and they'll refuse to recognize their gender).

That situation isn't automatically abuse, but it absolutely can be, and even if it's not abuse, they might experience it as an abuse. Which, of course, should prompt the speaker to apologize and correct themselves, when they know better.

Maybe some people feel the "how the target experiences it" is a bullshit thing to bring up, but it's literally the difference between an abusive husband beating his wife, and a loving and consensual BDSM relationship. Exact same actions to an observer, completely different experiences for those participating.

[Fitheach]

Jorden Peterson should be arrested for hate speech and sicking his Alt-Right goons to harass Cathy Newman. No more platforms for Fascists like Peterson.

[Machismo]

I do not recognize the terms 'xenophobia' and 'racism', as those are moral pronouncements that have no place in a philosophical discussion.

You are confusing your own personal morality of how you want to live your life with what is most logical for society. You might think that you should personally give every rattlesnake you come across the benefit of the doubt and try to make friends with it, but if that way of thinking proves fatal then the damages are limited only to the person who made that decision. If you decided to universalize that way of thinking into an ideology that made people hug rattlesnakes, and those who refused to were branded 'Ophidiophobes' and 'speciesists', then it would result in catastrophe for many people who were forced into accepting this system.

Of course, the best system would be one that maintained the freedom to engage in in-group preference against rattlesnakes, while also allowing people who want to associate with rattle snakes to do so. Of course, what you will say is that such a system discriminates against rattlesnakes, to which the response is that the same system would apply to them too, allowing them to have their own groups and their own choice of free association.

Well, that's a dodge and a half. You can choose to not recognize those words, but it doesn't mean they do not exist, or that they are not the "in-group" preferences you are talking about.

It sounds like you want to also practice thought policing, which doesn't come as much of a surprise, given your past posts.

But hey, the more you dodge, the more correct my assertion appears to be, thanks for that. You seem to be a proud member of the alt-right, and all that it entails.

I'm sorry you don't like the definitions of words, do you need a safe space from them?

[Theodarzna]

but... you're not... You are free to bond with anyone you want for any reason you want, you just can't infringe on other peoples rights without a good reason.

Someone pissing in your store is a good reason to refuse service to them. Someone calling you a dick is a good reason. Someone being born black is not a good reason.

The act of forming those bonds ensures the prejudices I describe will happen. Plus a state that can dictate that you can't hire your cousin, son, nephew or other relatives for a position for fear of it being prejudice against others is a very powerful state micromanaging our lives and really opens the flood gates to ideological capture by SJW types.

[OrcsRLame]

Sam Harris provides a thought experiment about the potential feasible case for using a nuclear first strike. Within the thought experiment, he is unclear whether it would be right or wrong to do so. He calls it an unthinkable crime but also says we should do it. The listener hears the part they agree with. One listener hears "He thinks its an unthinkable crime" and another hears "We should do it in that case". When people try to pin him down on what he is trying to say, he appeals to whichever interpretation is convenient in that moment. With people sympathetic to the nuclear first strike option, he goes right along. As soon as someone tries to call out the problems with is argument, he says "ITS JUST A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT AND I SAID ITS AN UNTHINKABLE CRIME".

Don't you think that's a valid position? It's a classic catch 22. I'm assuming the subject is about North Korea, and if that's the case, I think either position is valid. It seems to me like Sam is conflicted and not fully committed to a position. That isn't a sign of someone being stupid, it's, if anything, a lack of conviction, which is sometimes warranted.

PS: I am raiding atm and will respond to the flurry of replies when I am able.

[Machismo]

The act of forming those bonds ensures the prejudices I describe will happen. Plus a state that can dictate that you can't hire your cousin, son, nephew or other relatives for a position for fear of it being prejudice against others is a very powerful state micromanaging our lives and really opens the flood gates to ideological capture by SJW types.

Isn't that the same as dictating immigration laws based on color or nationality? That's also the government micromanaging the lives of others.

[Kalis]

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"

For the love of God!

It’s really simple. Neo-Marxism is Marxism but with white/non-white and others groups substituting the rich/poor groups in Marxism.

This is commonly called ‘identity politics’, it is a product of the 70s.

That other political ideologies have in groups based on identity is irrelevant, as they usually have their own name to differentiate them, e.g. white supremacy. This does not mean that white supremacy is related to Marxism, as its roots aren’t based on Marxist theory.

[Demontjuh]

Jorden Peterson should be arrested for hate speech and sicking his Alt-Right goons to harass Cathy Newman. No more platforms for Fascists like Peterson.

after Peterson heard about what was happening online to Newman, he tweeted out to his followers NOT to do such things..

don't twist stuff, he didn't tell people to do shit.

[Machismo]

This is the problem, you are basically trying to legally enforce a specific definition of manners. If I want to correct myself because I feel bad and believe I have hurt someone, that is completely fine, but to have the government legally correct me and force me to feel bad is a completely different thing.

In reality, governments do this all the time. It's how obscenity laws became so prevalent.

[Machismo]

Again you are describing an extreme that isn't destined to happen. Not every situation leads to an extreme in that way, especially when you know what the extreme is and can prepare for it and put limits on it, which is what societies already do with things like supreme courts and judges and bills of basic rights and freedom of speech and all that good stuff.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes and I think obscenity laws are fucking absurd for about the same reason.

They are, but they will never go away... not in the United States. Pushing a law that dictates the pronouns you can use is no different than banning curse words, or even nudity. In the end, it's design is to protect people's feelings from being hurt.

[Kalis]

after Peterson heard about what was happening online to Newman, he tweeted out to his followers NOT to do such things..

don't twist stuff, he didn't tell people to do shit.

Read their post history, they are winding people up. They are quite good at it.

[Endus]

Are you dense?

He is arguing they adhere to hierarchies for the same reason we adhere to hierarchies (chemical processes in the brain). Not that because we have similar brain chemistry, we should emulate lobsters...

I can't tell if you are being intentionally obtuse or if you genuinely lack the capacity to understand this simple concept...

The biggest issue with this is that as you develop a more complex mind, the capacity for instinct to drive behaviour lessens, and the opportunity for non-hereditary culture to emerge.

Perhaps the best single example is the Forest Troop of wild baboons in Kenya. It's a great example because it was a sudden shift, demonstrating that the behaviour of baboon troops was not ingrained genetically, and it happened among wild baboons rather than because of human manipulation, which could convince them to act other than they'd otherwise do.

Researchers started observing the troop in 1978, and they acted like a typical baboon troop, with aggressive males fighting each other for dominance regularly and with great violence. Then, in 1983, the males started scavenging from an open garbage pit, they pretty much all contracted bovine tuberculosis, and died, leaving the troop mostly female and with a few much-less aggressive males, by 1986.

They stopped observing the troop and came back in 1993. The troop's males, none who predated the disease breakout, were still much less aggressive. Males migrate between troops after puberty, and the troop had maintained this new culture largely despite that. And the troop generally showed less markers for stress, overall.

The collapse of that hierarchical structure in just a few years, and how it hasn't seemed to return, pretty firmly shows how silly the idea that all this is ingrained in our genes really is. And frankly, we're thinking beings. My genes say stuff like "want donut, smash and take donut", and my brain says "no, that's a bad thing to do, why don't I just pay the nice man and I can get a donut without conflict, stupid monkey hindbrain." We're better than our instincts. Or at least, we fucking should be.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC387823/

- - - Updated - - -

This is the problem, you are basically trying to legally enforce a specific definition of manners. If I want to correct myself because I feel bad and believe I have hurt someone, that is completely fine, but to have the government legally correct me and force me to feel bad is a completely different thing.

I'm not talking about enforcing anything. How you feel about having hurt someone doesn't matter. You don't get to decide if they should be hurt or not.