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

[Machismo]

I think it's different in the way that those things were already commonly accepted as taboo in society, so laws followed, whereas in this situation the laws are trying to dictate taboos in an attempt to curve the progress of society.

But regardless, I disagree with all of that anyways, so disagreeing with this law really isn't much of a step beyond it. Peoples feelings aren't that important.

It really just happens to be what the majority wants at the time, which is a shame. People really need to understand that others should be under no obligation to give a damn about their feelings. Legislating feelings is a shitty way to run a government.

[Venant]

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.

One of the alarming issues that people on the alt-right bring up often is that things like libertarianism/individualism/liberalism/progressivism seem to be unique to one particular culture. There are many other cultures on this planet that lack their own version of the enlightenment, from which many of the values that support these ideologies come from. Even when you see an adoption of such values in other cultures, it would appear that over time these cultures regress away from those values back to the ones indigenous to it.

I agree that subversion is an extreme problem in most western ideologies. I think that much of neoliberalism is based upon the assumption that non-western cultures can also be subverted, but I would point to the middle east as an example of how this is a failure.

I think where you are going with your observations is that the current dominant ideologies of western civilization are somehow self-detonating. Somewhere along the line, a feature was programmed into the collective operating system that would cause an infinite regression to occur once we had abandoned the foundational beliefs of our system. I think this is most obvious in the grievance culture aspect of progressivism, that x group oppressed y group in the past, but really this argument leads to an infinite regression of one group oppressing another group. The only thing that lets them stand above this abyss is that they make arbitrary cutoffs that cannot be defended, and the whole 'end of history' thing is just one of these arbitrary cutoffs that allows for the existence of this dysfunctional ideology.

[Shalcker]

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.

But New Soviet Man plan didn't actually work.

The Soviet man was to be selfless, learned, healthy, muscular, and enthusiastic in spreading the socialist Revolution. Adherence to Marxism-Leninism, and individual behavior consistent with that philosophy's prescriptions, were among the crucial traits expected of the New Soviet man, which required intellectualism and hard discipline.[6] He was not driven by crude impulses of nature but by conscious self-mastery, a belief that required the rejection of both innate personality and the unconscious, which Soviet psychologists therefore rejected.

No matter how much i would like that to be possible, there doesn't seem to be any easy way to transition from "current humans" toward such development on societal level.

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.

You got to create environment where instincts would support such development in self-reinforcing way, and then society that would maintain such environment.

Not easy at all.

[Venant]

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?

I can respect that you disagree with my points, but are you really so confident in your position as to believe you have some sort of divine insight that allows you knowledge of universal morality? You are merely repeating what the majority of people are programmed to believe, if this was 500 years ago you would be attempting to label me a 'witch' instead of 'alt right'.

[OrcsRLame]

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).

You know what, this is fair and I apologize for misrepresenting you. Know that it was not my intention to do so.

[Ragedaug]

Whow, hold your horses Mr. Superdramatic. It's just a guy that earns $$$ by catering to alt-righters and people scared of women. He's basically just a Milo with an academic title.

I got a good laugh out of this statement. Your statement, Durion, is more like something Milo would say than anything Peterson has said.

[OrcsRLame]

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?

First off, I never claimed that Canada is fascist or a dictatorship. That's silly.

You're right that these protections already exist for other groups. However, those other groups do not have activists trying to frame skepticism of their identity as abusive and hateful. It's sleight of hand. You're technically correct with your assertion, but there's people trying to maneuver into a position that would let them capitalize on this new law, which is the essence of what Jordan Peterson was arguing; Authoritarian neo-marxists are trying to use language as a weapon to hurt people that they consider their enemies. And he was proven right, as one of these neo-marxists, Nathan Rambukkana, already tried to hold Bill C-16 over the head of an innocent person. Regardless of you or I personally interpret the law, Jordan Peterson is dead on with his accusations.

[Machismo]

I can respect that you disagree with my points, but are you really so confident in your position as to believe you have some sort of divine insight that allows you knowledge of universal morality? You are merely repeating what the majority of people are programmed to believe, if this was 500 years ago you would be attempting to label me a 'witch' instead of 'alt right'.

I never claimed universal morality, not by a long shot. I'm simply pointing out that you appear to be trying to justify racism, xenophobia, and thought policing. Instead of addressing those questions, you sought to try and say such terms were meaningless, and it was a clear attempt to dodge.

When it comes to justifying, and even propping up racism, then you really are going for the bottom of the barrel. You are not persecuted, that is what you seek to do to others. Trying to label yourself as a victim, the target of some conspiracy and mass hysteria... is ludicrous.

In the end, you are trying to justify racism and xenophobia, no amount of deflection is going to change that.

[xact4]

I've never been more excited by a thread on this website than I am for this one.

So many people not even bothering to watch the interview.
So many people straight up making things up.
So many people participating in the cognitive dissonance the interviewee experienced, produced by the internal conflict of "This persons logic is irrefutable, but my beliefs prevent me from accepting it's reality".

It's delicious.

[Theodarzna]

One of the alarming issues that people on the alt-right bring up often is that things like libertarianism/individualism/liberalism/progressivism seem to be unique to one particular culture. There are many other cultures on this planet that lack their own version of the enlightenment, from which many of the values that support these ideologies come from. Even when you see an adoption of such values in other cultures, it would appear that over time these cultures regress away from those values back to the ones indigenous to it.

I agree that subversion is an extreme problem in most western ideologies. I think that much of neoliberalism is based upon the assumption that non-western cultures can also be subverted, but I would point to the middle east as an example of how this is a failure.

I think where you are going with your observations is that the current dominant ideologies of western civilization are somehow self-detonating. Somewhere along the line, a feature was programmed into the collective operating system that would cause an infinite regression to occur once we had abandoned the foundational beliefs of our system. I think this is most obvious in the grievance culture aspect of progressivism, that x group oppressed y group in the past, but really this argument leads to an infinite regression of one group oppressing another group. The only thing that lets them stand above this abyss is that they make arbitrary cutoffs that cannot be defended, and the whole 'end of history' thing is just one of these arbitrary cutoffs that allows for the existence of this dysfunctional ideology.

Well neo-liberalism is built on the broad assumption that culture was mutable and interchangable but also that with continual material advancement and enrichment we could pay people to become atomized, deracinated, identityless and individualistic consumers. This was faulty because it assumed the ability to pay people off was infinite and that we could sustain that on a finite world of limited resources that we've already seriously polluted and messed up just getting Europe and North/South America where its at.

Nothing about this way of life is sustainable.

- - - Updated - - -

But New Soviet Man plan didn't actually work.

The Soviet man was to be selfless, learned, healthy, muscular, and enthusiastic in spreading the socialist Revolution. Adherence to Marxism-Leninism, and individual behavior consistent with that philosophy's prescriptions, were among the crucial traits expected of the New Soviet man, which required intellectualism and hard discipline.[6] He was not driven by crude impulses of nature but by conscious self-mastery, a belief that required the rejection of both innate personality and the unconscious, which Soviet psychologists therefore rejected.

No matter how much i would like that to be possible, there doesn't seem to be any easy way to transition from "current humans" toward such development on societal level.

You got to create environment where instincts would support such development in self-reinforcing way, and then society that would maintain such environment.

Not easy at all.

Yes, the rather novel idea that we can mold a new human being through policy legislation and clever speeches.

[Gutpile]

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.

Location: Berkeley, CA. Yeah, this checks out.

[OrcsRLame]

I doubt that in-group preference will ever not be useful from an evolutionary standpoint. The issue with the alt right is that they are a reaction to forces that are attempting to deconstruct the in-group preferences of other groups, while at the same time having extremely high in-group preference among themselves. Don't you believe that the quasi-religious beliefs of the modern progressive are a strong signal of in-group preference? Of course, the position of the alt-right is that such ideological groups will fail in the long run when in opposition with culturally enforced group identities.



This is how in-group preference works for all groups. All groups want to put their own group at the top, I believe it is a reflection of human nature that exists because it is beneficial for survival in the long run. Sure you can make moral arguments, but you could also make a moral argument that you should show compassion by going and hugging people with the plague, which is a moral argument that would lead to the extinction of its purveyors.

I understand what you're saying here and I even agree with it.

I have two fundamental disagreements though.

1. Just because something is natural does not mean it is desirable. For example, for a male, it is evolutionarily advantageous for him to rape every single female he comes across. I think you can make a strong argument though, that there are a lot of valid reasons to not do that. It's an example of the naturalistic fallacy.

2. Yes, morals are subjective. There's an infinite amount of interpretations of a finite set of phenomena. Or as David Hume put it, you cannot get an ought from an is. However, there are a finite number of valid interpretations. That is, interpretations that don't lead to extinction. I also think you can use a combination of virtue ethics, phenomenology and pragmatism to reach moral judgments that pretty soundly defeat moral relativism. The example I like to use, is that you can interpret pain as a moral good, but even if that is your subjective interpretation, if I smack one of your teeth with a hammer, you will very quickly be looking for the pain pills and the phone number of the nearest dentist. Your own actions betray your subjective ideas. You can claim pain is good all you want, but when push comes to shove you don't really believe it. That bit of phenomenology leads us to the conclusion that pain is bad; or put less obtusely, unnecessary pain, pain that doesn't produce a desirable benefit is bad. If pain is bad, then it's logical to say that the opposite of pain is good. This leads me to the conclusion that the amelioration of pain is virtuous. You could counter that by saying that you claim that for yourself but not others, the amelioration of your pain is virtuous but not the pain of others. This is where pragmatism comes in. I can't say that's an invalid way to think, but if you propagate that way of thinking, you will eventually find yourself face to face with someone tougher than you that also has no moral regard for your pain, and that's not gonna go well for you.

It's for those reasons that I could never call myself alt-right. Their goals violate my personal ethics.

[Theodarzna]

But New Soviet Man plan didn't actually work.

The Soviet man was to be selfless, learned, healthy, muscular, and enthusiastic in spreading the socialist Revolution. Adherence to Marxism-Leninism, and individual behavior consistent with that philosophy's prescriptions, were among the crucial traits expected of the New Soviet man, which required intellectualism and hard discipline.[6] He was not driven by crude impulses of nature but by conscious self-mastery, a belief that required the rejection of both innate personality and the unconscious, which Soviet psychologists therefore rejected.

No matter how much i would like that to be possible, there doesn't seem to be any easy way to transition from "current humans" toward such development on societal level.

You got to create environment where instincts would support such development in self-reinforcing way, and then society that would maintain such environment.

Not easy at all.

Yes, the rather novel idea that we can mold a new human being through policy legislation and clever speeches.

[Sforza]

Oh boy, the average mmo-champion forumer (and the "pro" ones) on total meltdown over the fact that there are only two genders. Also can't cope with the fact that freaks disguised as tyrants (or vice-versa) abusing government power to strong arm people into silence is a bad thing.
A community of nutjobs.

[Torto]

I've never been more excited by a thread on this website than I am for this one.

So many people not even bothering to watch the interview.
So many people straight up making things up.
So many people participating in the cognitive dissonance the interviewee experienced, produced by the internal conflict of "This persons logic is irrefutable, but my beliefs prevent me from accepting it's reality".

It's delicious.

Agreed, this thread has been an enjoyable read. We've been lucky the mods haven't locked it yet as they tend to do progressive ideology gets called into question.

[Theodarzna]

This law enforces something specific.

And yes, we clearly do get to decide if they should be hurt or not, because we don't have laws about most nonsense that people are hurt by, like there is no law about hurting the feelings of Christians by saying their anti-gay stances are bigoted and wrong.

Again, you are in favor of enforcing a SPECIFIC set of manners that only include "victim" groups and not just "people who feel insulted or abused" because that group is infinite in number.

I mean victim groups are as well, but again, you only care about specific victim groups.

Endus' view is ultimately untenable and will give way to a torrent as his very worldview is the catalyst for the Alt-Right to come into being.

You either have Identity for everyone or no one, you cannot have it for some and not others.

[Everwake]

I was wondering why there was so much hate on this board for Peterson, then I remembered that he's always trashing Communism, which of course would make him wildly unpopular here lol

[Theodarzna]

I was wondering why there was so much hate on this board for Peterson, then I remembered that he's always trashing Communism, which of course would make him wildly unpopular here lol

My thoughts on Jorden Peterson can be summarized that he has an over-inflated sense of self-importance and his cult is annoying.

[Zython]

This is how in-group preference works for all groups. All groups want to put their own group at the top, I believe it is a reflection of human nature that exists because it is beneficial for survival in the long run.

This would make sense if this were originally phrased as a self-serving preference. But you stated this as an objective necessity. So again, why does society ONLY work if your preferred group is on top?

Sure you can make moral arguments, but you could also make a moral argument that you should show compassion by going and hugging people with the plague, which is a moral argument that would lead to the extinction of its purveyors.

Well, see, that wouldn't lead to my extinction. Because I regularly wash my hands.

[Endus]

Endus' view is ultimately untenable and will give way to a torrent as his very worldview is the catalyst for the Alt-Right to come into being.

You either have Identity for everyone or no one, you cannot have it for some and not others.

I can't eyeroll hard enough at this.

You've demonstrated time and again that you have little to no comprehension of even the basic tenets of what I believe.