Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I'm back, at least for a while

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Supreme
    replied
    Best of luck buddy.

    Leave a comment:


  • paradise!
    replied
    Damn...jerome is mad informed. I will never forget the time I plagiarized your road to serfdom analysis in high school. that 86/100 was all you buddy.

    regards,
    Paradise

    Leave a comment:


  • kthx
    replied
    Don't worry Eph I got you fam. Now this thread can be used for good news again.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jerome Scuggs
    replied
    Originally posted by qan View Post
    Yeah
    yoooo i just posted in a thread kthx started and i think in order to keep this thread on topic re: eph & people checking in to say hey to eph, ima post my reply in that thread

    i assume you just check "new posts" like any sane person so it'll be there

    Leave a comment:


  • Leland
    replied
    all fags reported

    Leave a comment:


  • qan
    replied
    Yeah, I knew someone whose personal pronoun was "D". It was quite annoying, but this was while much of this was still new and people just sort of went with it. Was awkward, to say the least.

    The law that Peterson's talking about he's claiming would make using the wrong pronoun a crime. Whether or not that's actually correct is not something I have the ability to judge. It's what he believes is happening, and that's why he opposes it.

    To say the far left or far right are inherently authoritarian doesn't make any sense, agreed. Or that identity politics are limited to any particular group, ideology or way of thinking.

    One thing that has distanced me from identifying with leftist politics in recent years is the increasingly authoritarian bent of some of those who claim to be left-leaning (but are often just following identity politics on social issues and are usually fairly right-wing in terms of economic issues) -- what I guess you could refer to the mainstream left. The people who watch Colbert, guffaw at every Trump joke and are quick to post how disgusted they are whenever anyone says anything that's a bit out of line with respectable society. The people who always vote for the Democrats, often as a vote against Republicans.

    The alternative to that crowd seems to be the hyper-ideological left. They're happy to argue, but mostly just in the context of which branch of Communism you think will cause the workers of the world to unite. Most love tight rhetoric and violent revolution with no plans for who does the dishes afterward.

    I don't really see a takeover from either the right or left authoritarians, but I do see more polarization. And it feels as if antiauthoritarianism is becoming a sort of social faux pas. If you're not willing to regulate speech or condemn the other side as subhuman scum, you're a traitor. Talking with the "enemy" or considering that they could have a point is heretical. This doesn't mean you have to identify with a particular set of beliefs, but at the very least, you can't say anything that might be construed as something "those guys" would believe. Maybe negative belief, what Nietzsche called slave morality, bound together not so much by what you believe is good as what you hate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jerome Scuggs
    replied
    Originally posted by qan View Post
    From what I understand (though I could be wrong -- haven't studied it in detail), that's sort of a strawman of his actual position on the use of personal pronouns. In the Cathy Newman interview he made it a bit more clear, stating that if, say, a transgendered mtof student in his class were to ask him to use "her/she" pronouns, he absolutely would. Because that's an issue of respect, of basic human decency, and it costs you next to nothing to do it.

    His response might be different for an invented pronoun, such as "ze" or "zer," though. Not sure. I don't think I could do that myself. Have trouble enough remembering names, much less pronouns. I have gay, lesbian and transgendered friends, would probably be vaguely considered an "ally" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) but I'll be damned if I'm going to use "zer." It's just an unreasonable demand. Probably just would decide not to talk to that person, because I'm not sure I could say "zer" without smirking. Really, get over yourself. It seems really self-absorbed to demand your own pronoun, despite the substantial burden it places on others. For that reason I think "they" should suffice if they don't feel he/she is a good match.

    Peterson's biggest objection is legally mandating the use of personal pronouns. Making it a crime to not use them. An example of the tyranny of such a law is easy to demonstrate. If I want my pronouns to be "sexy cool dude"/"everyone's", you could be arrested for a hate crime if you said, "Where did he go? He left his sunglasses here," instead of "Where did sexy cool dude go? Sexy cool dude left everyone's sunglasses here." There's very little room for legally determining what is considered a reasonable vs. unreasonable personal pronoun. Very murky territory. It's not the sort of speech that needs to be legally mandated. Even if you force someone to say "she" or "ze" when they don't want to, they'll still say it sarcastically and with hatred. Do you then ban sarcastic use of personal pronouns? Where, exactly, does it end?

    Authoritarianism should be opposed wherever it is found, whether it's in a "Communist" utopia or a fascist dictatorship. The far-left authoritarians in this instance are absolutely in the wrong; meanwhile, the only mainstream ideological group of people who seem to defend freedom of speech, other than ACLU supporters, are the conservatives and alt-right (well, the ones who aren't fascists -- there are quite a few fascist scumbags in that camp). This authoritarian tendency of the modern left naturally drives young people perhaps needlessly toward the alt-right. If you find authoritarianism absolutely appalling, dare to defend someone's right to use hate speech/to not be respectful, and oppose the restriction of freedom of speech except in a few special cases, suddenly you're not only right-wing, but a social pariah. Whatever happened to disagreeing with what someone says, but defending to the death their right to say it?
    have you ever met anyone who actually demands to be called "zer" or whatever, are people being arrested for misgendering people, i dunno ... who's building the strawmen here :P

    my critique of peterson would probably be the same critique i have that underpins this post: namely that idea identity politics is some "far left" thing and the "far left" is all about idpol authoritarianism

    this is my idea of an american far-left figure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Haywood

    this is what far leftists have to say about idpol: https://www.marxists.org/reference/a...2/mswv2_03.htm

    and, finally, i dont understand why peterson is invoking some spectre of a left-wing authoritarian takeover while everyone ignores shit like this: https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/ho...pinski-newman/
    Last edited by Jerome Scuggs; 02-06-2018, 12:34 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • qan
    replied
    Originally posted by Jerome Scuggs View Post
    petterson is so bad for so many reasons but, they also say a picture is worth a thousand words (picture)
    From what I understand (though I could be wrong -- haven't studied it in detail), that's sort of a strawman of his actual position on the use of personal pronouns. In the Cathy Newman interview he made it a bit more clear, stating that if, say, a transgendered mtof student in his class were to ask him to use "her/she" pronouns, he absolutely would. Because that's an issue of respect, of basic human decency, and it costs you next to nothing to do it.

    His response might be different for an invented pronoun, such as "ze" or "zer," though. Not sure. I don't think I could do that myself. Have trouble enough remembering names, much less pronouns. I have gay, lesbian and transgendered friends, would probably be vaguely considered an "ally" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) but I'll be damned if I'm going to use "zer." It's just an unreasonable demand. Probably just would decide not to talk to that person, because I'm not sure I could say "zer" without smirking. Really, get over yourself. It seems really self-absorbed to demand your own pronoun, despite the substantial burden it places on others. For that reason I think "they" should suffice if they don't feel he/she is a good match.

    Peterson's biggest objection is legally mandating the use of personal pronouns. Making it a crime to not use them. An example of the tyranny of such a law is easy to demonstrate. If I want my pronouns to be "sexy cool dude"/"everyone's", you could be arrested for a hate crime if you said, "Where did he go? He left his sunglasses here," instead of "Where did sexy cool dude go? Sexy cool dude left everyone's sunglasses here." There's very little room for legally determining what is considered a reasonable vs. unreasonable personal pronoun. Very murky territory. It's not the sort of speech that needs to be legally mandated. Even if you force someone to say "she" or "ze" when they don't want to, they'll still say it sarcastically and with hatred. Do you then ban sarcastic use of personal pronouns? Where, exactly, does it end?

    Authoritarianism should be opposed wherever it is found, whether it's in a "Communist" utopia or a fascist dictatorship. The far-left authoritarians in this instance are absolutely in the wrong; meanwhile, the only mainstream ideological group of people who seem to defend freedom of speech, other than ACLU supporters, are the conservatives and alt-right (well, the ones who aren't fascists -- there are quite a few fascist scumbags in that camp). This authoritarian tendency of the modern left naturally drives young people perhaps needlessly toward the alt-right. If you find authoritarianism absolutely appalling, dare to defend someone's right to use hate speech/to not be respectful, and oppose the restriction of freedom of speech except in a few special cases, suddenly you're not only right-wing, but a social pariah. Whatever happened to disagreeing with what someone says, but defending to the death their right to say it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jerome Scuggs
    replied
    Originally posted by forwards View Post
    Dr. Jordan B. Petersen is the reason I'm no longer a Social Justice Warrior.
    petterson is so bad for so many reasons but, they also say a picture is worth a thousand words

    Leave a comment:


  • Bioture
    replied
    Recovered PW to say that I'm rooting for you Eph! Go get em.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stayon
    replied
    Stay strong veteran trencher. You're an example!

    Leave a comment:


  • forwards
    replied
    Dr. Jordan B. Petersen is the reason I'm no longer a Social Justice Warrior.

    Leave a comment:


  • kthx
    replied
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrod.../#3068ec121c05

    Good article to read.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jerome Scuggs
    replied
    Originally posted by kthx View Post
    See, this is when the working class people need to seize the means of production from the Pfizer and start creating their own new treatments for these diseases, perhaps gathering funding from the socialist paradises of the world that don't create any new medicines, or medical treatment as it is and expect us to pay for all of them you know.
    cuba is the only country in the world to have ended mother-to-child HIV transmission and the research that pharma companies do, as i posted above, is already buttressed by taxpayer funds

    so your post is, unironically, very true and i agree

    Leave a comment:


  • kthx
    replied
    Originally posted by Jerome Scuggs View Post


    https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ons-treatments

    A key thing you're missing here is that this is exactly why the founding fathers designed a system where if humans were being shitty, we couid engage in political action to find solutions. If I didn't see this tweet about Pfizer, if I didn't follow up and confirm it with a google search, do you think this is something you'd catch on the news? You're well aware of the problems with public institutions because they're public. Meanwhile, I read stories, every single day, about abuses committed by corporations who are getting away with it and being subsidized by your tax dollars to do it. But these stories rarely tend to make headlines, because there's not a profit motive to do so

    You clearly don't think "all systems suck" because you clearly have a preference towards one and not the other. "all X sucks" is something people say when they still defend something but can't think of any reasons to defend it :P

    But honestly? My main concern here, obviously, is that I would like to see everyone have access to healthcare that's of a quality expected of the most wealthy country on earth. How do you think we could begin to craft such a system? Where do we go from here? (This isn't some rhetorical question or a question intended to prove a point. I genuinely want to look forwards here, and start a conversation about what COULD be done.)

    edit: for what it's worth, richard nixon wasn't concerned with profit motive when he launched the "war on cancer" and signed a bill which massively funded cancer research. no corporation in his lifetime thought wasting that much money would pay off. but because of this massive jumpstart, we have been seeing the fruits of this research for at least a decade now.
    See, this is when the working class people need to seize the means of production from the Pfizer and start creating their own new treatments for these diseases, perhaps gathering funding from the socialist paradises of the world that don't create any new medicines, or medical treatment as it is and expect us to pay for all of them you know.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X