Peterson, Harris, etc....

[McUnited]

The fact that some intelligent people decide to use their intellect to appeal to the gut of the masses in order to gain fame and inflate their ego doesn't make them dumb. It just makes them morally bankrupt arseholes.

We have this same movement in Holland with Thierry Baudet. He's also this new type of conservative (intellectual) with a PHD in something something and several best selling books to his name by the age of thirty. There's no question that the guy has a high IQ, same as there's no question he is a narcissistic shitbag of a person. I doubt he truly stands behind all the things he says, but he knows it appeals to a lot of disgruntled people who adore him for saying it. He basks in this adoration, his goal is this adoration.

It's the same for Shapiro when he says there is no real discrimination against black people. I'm quite sure he knows this isn't true, because he's not an illiterate hermit living in a small hut in the desert, but he knows his supporters will coo and scream his name in elation when he says it. He craves the adoration of the crowd. If he were funny I'm sure he'd want to be a stand up comedian.

Being smart and being a bad person isn't mutually exclusive. Most historical supervillains are probably very smart. Doesn't make them any better.

Shapiro has made his views on racial discrimination clear enough that they deserve not to be misrepresented in this way. His position is essentially this - 'For sure, there are racist people in America, but American society is not racist. Don't go round chanting 'institutional racism' without concrete evidence, but instead highlight instances of racism and I'll fight it alongside you.'

This seems to me to be a reasonable position to take. I found Larry Elder quite persuasive on the topic and recommend you watch this short video (though perhaps you may ultimately disagree with him), which I believe more truthfully aligns with Shapiro's views.

 

[KirkDuyt]

Shapiro has made his views on racial discrimination clear enough that they deserve not to be misrepresented in this way. His position is essentially this - 'For sure, there are racist people in America, but American society is not racist. Don't go round chanting 'institutional racism' without concrete evidence, but instead highlight instances of racism and I'll fight it alongside you.'

This seems to me to be a reasonable position to take. I found Larry Elder quite persuasive on the topic and recommend you watch this short video (though perhaps you may ultimately disagree with him), which I believe more truthfully aligns with Shapiro's views.

Another perfect example of the word play this alt right rat pack uses.

It's the same as Geert Wilders saying, I have no problems with muslims, I have a problem with Islam as an ideology. If you think western society is in no way racist you're alarmingly blind or just unwilling to face the truth.

The most grating thing about Shapiro however, is his inconsistency, or even hypocrisy when it comes to anti semitism. When it comes to African Americans he refuses to call even the most blatant incidents racist, but at the same time he calls Obama a "jew hater" after speaking out against an Israely attack on Palestinians saying: "Obama despises Israel because at root, Obama despises the traditional Judeo-Christian underpinning of Western civilization" and other garbage rethoric of the same level ad nauseam.

In another talk he claims arabs are the root of all darkness and like to live in open sewage. This last thing alone should disqualify him from any form of serious debate in my opinion. The guy is a populist arsehole who plays on dimwitted bigots' feelings to get attention. People like Ben Shapiro thrive on bigotry, shortsightedness and ignorance. People like him make the world a polarized shithole and if I ever met him I would rip of his tiny little cock and fcuk him with it.

 

[Tyrion]

Shapiro has made his views on racial discrimination clear enough that they deserve not to be misrepresented in this way. His position is essentially this - 'For sure, there are racist people in America, but American society is not racist. Don't go round chanting 'institutional racism' without concrete evidence, but instead highlight instances of racism and I'll fight it alongside you.'

This seems to me to be a reasonable position to take. I found Larry Elder quite persuasive on the topic and recommend you watch this short video (though perhaps you may ultimately disagree with him), which I believe more truthfully aligns with Shapiro's views.

Has he fought many examples of racism? He seems far more interested in discrediting the people who are fighting racism than doing it himself.

 

[Raoul]

Another perfect example of the word play this alt right rat pack uses.

It's the same as Geert Wilders saying, I have no problems with muslims, I have a problem with Islam as an ideology. If you think western society is in no way racist you're alarmingly blind or just unwilling to face the truth.

The most grating thing about Shapiro however, is his inconsistency, or even hypocrisy when it comes to anti semitism. When it comes to African Americans he refuses to call even the most blatant incidents racist, but at the same time he calls Obama a "jew hater" after speaking out against an Israely attack on Palestinians saying: "Obama despises Israel because at root, Obama despises the traditional Judeo-Christian underpinning of Western civilization" and other garbage rethoric of the same level ad nauseam.

In another talk he claims arabs are the root of all darkness and like to live in open sewage. This last thing alone should disqualify him from any form of serious debate in my opinion. The guy is a populist arsehole who plays on dimwitted bigots' feelings to get attention. People like Ben Shapiro thrive on bigotry, shortsightedness and ignorance. People like him make the world a polarized shithole and if I ever met him I would rip of his tiny little cock and fcuk him with it.

Any issues with what Elder is saying in the Rubin video above ?

 

[caid]

Any issues with what Elder is saying in the Rubin video above ?

Hard to argue with him if you're not American. How a country is portrayed in the media and the reality on the ground tend not to align perfectly. Would your prison system not be an example of systemic racism? Cops being reluctant to murder black people is good, how would it effect their willingness to pull them over for traffic violations or 'random' spot checks?
I dont know. He probably has a point. I'm not sure society is really working on the right areas to combat racism.

 

[Eboue]

I googled Larry elder and it turns out that one of his favorite books is atlas shrugged, which isnt just an argument for a very stupid philosophy but is one of the worst books ever written from a literary standpoint.

 

[Eboue]

I tried to watch the video. Elder says there is no racism, recites the usual FBI crime stats and blames everything on black lives matter. But I had to turn it off when Rubin calls himself a liberal

 

[Minimalist]

Anything with Dave Rubin involved is about as intellectually engaging as an episode of Friends. And Rubin isn't remotely likeable and is an awful comedian to boot. Basically a cnut you'd love to punch. Sorry if that offends anyone but..

Muh freeze peach

 

[KirkDuyt]

Any issues with what Elder is saying in the Rubin video above ?

Not at all. I'm not at all saying that every bad thing happening to black people is racism or the angry white man is trying to keep te black man down. This very reasonable video does not at all compare to the garbage Shapiro spouts. Though I do believe he is cherry picking a bit.

As someone else pointed out, it's hard for an outsider to really judge what goes on in the United states, but the figures of black people being sentenced to longer sentences for the same crimes and black people with similar backgrounds having more trouble finding jobs are pretty much everywhere. Are they all wrong?

Also his snippet of more white kids being born out of wedlock seems a bit archaic in this day and age. Lot's of wealthy happy couples have children out of wedlock. I don't think that's a fair metric to use when estimating someone's chances to succeed in life.

Also, something completely anecdotal; I work as an international recruitment consultant and some of my clients working with American companies don't consider people from the middle east, because it doesn't feel right in the current global climate and there might be sanctions against certain countries in the future. When I pointed out the gentleman I put forward was actually a Dutch citizen the line went quiet. Ofcourse that's anecdotal and I might just be lying, but I'm not and not hiring someone because they were born in the middle east is racist.

Btw Rubin would vote Trump in 2020, which makes him a bit hard to take seriously in all honesty.

 

[2cents]

I think that’s more or less on the money but Peterson’s message isn’t secular. He’s actually quite religious.

I haven’t read Peterson but there doesn’t necessarily need to be a conflict drawn between secularism and religiosity, the two can and do coexist perfectly. Does Peterson push for the imposition of his religious beliefs on broader society?

 

[PedroMendez]

I used the phrase "secular" in a wrong way. I have no idea if he is religious or not. What I was trying to say is the following:
Peterson is trying to give identity to people and he is talking about the meaning of life. These are domains, that have been strongly influenced by religion for a very long time. Instead of throwing all of that out of the window, he borrows many of these ideas/concepts/narratives (one might call them platitudes) from religion, mythology, literature and history. He argues that they have value/utility. I don't think one has to be an actual believer to do so.

In the end I don't think he is much different from other "self-help Guru", with the exception of his style of delivering the message. In this field of writing, style actually matters to some extend. It only "works" when it is actually able to inspire/convince one to some extend.

(all of that could be wrong; I have almost exclusively read stuff that other people have written about him)

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I haven’t read Peterson but there doesn’t necessarily need to be a conflict drawn between secularism and religiosity, the two can and do coexist perfectly. Does Peterson push for the imposition of his religious beliefs on broader society?

Definitely not. I just meant that his life philosophy is closely linked with hreligious ideology. And he believes in God.

 

[berbatrick]

I used the phrase "secular" in a wrong way. I have no idea if he is religious or not. What I was trying to say is the following:
Peterson is trying to give identity to people and he is talking about the meaning of life. These are domains, that have been strongly influenced by religion for a very long time. Instead of throwing all of that out of the window, he borrows many of these ideas/concepts/narratives (one might call them platitudes) from religion, mythology, literature and history. He argues that they have value/utility. I don't think one has to be an actual believer to do so.

In the end I don't think he is much different from other "self-help Guru", with the exception of his style of delivering the message. In this field of writing, style actually matters to some extend. It only "works" when it is actually able to inspire/convince one to some extend.

(all of that could be wrong; I have almost exclusively read stuff that other people have written about him)

Yes, and all that would be fine except he really overextends himself outside his field.
Last page I posted his extension from psychology to history: psychoanalysis of Hitler. Hitler was irrational because he killed Jews instead of using them as slaves (and he seemed to be extrapolating to "thus Hitler didn't want to win the war"). Literally 5 seconds of google - or just general knowledge - will contradict that.
Next, his political views aren't clear but their overall outlook is clear - a defence of hierarchy and tradition (which IMO is the core of conservatism).
So, he extends from psycho to evolutionary bio to use lobsters to explain that hierarchies are biologically hard-wired. Except (like that article you posted in General CE chat) there is a ton of data about human history (and primates) which both supports and opposes his view. To take a very simplistic view of lobster similarity to humans and make judgements of human society based on that is badly stretching - IMO he's doing it to easily justify his politics.
Finally, he (like many modern conservatives) needs to explain the apparent downfall of western cuture, which he champions. So, he extends from psychology to critical theory and sociology, with seemingly zero knowledge there, butchers every concept he comes across (pomo, 'cultural Marxism'), and builds a narrative from that.

 

[PedroMendez]

Yes, and all that would be fine except he really overextends himself outside his field.
Last page I posted his extension from psychology to history: psychoanalysis of Hitler. Hitler was irrational because he killed Jews instead of using them as slaves (and he seemed to be extrapolating to "thus Hitler didn't want to win the war"). Literally 5 seconds of google - or just general knowledge - will contradict that.
Next, his political views aren't clear but their overall outlook is clear - a defence of hierarchy and tradition (which IMO is the core of conservatism).
So, he extends from psycho to evolutionary bio to use lobsters to explain that hierarchies are biologically hard-wired. Except (like that article you posted in General CE chat) there is a ton of data about human history (and primates) which both supports and opposes his view. To take a very simplistic view of lobster similarity to humans and make judgements of human society based on that is badly stretching - IMO he's doing it to easily justify his politics.
Finally, he (like many modern conservatives) needs to explain the apparent downfall of western cuture, which he champions. So, he extends from psychology to critical theory and sociology, with seemingly zero knowledge there, butchers every concept he comes across (pomo, 'cultural Marxism'), and builds a narrative from that.

He overextends himself inside his field and overextends the significance of his field. He seems to say a lot of stupid things. That said, I also wouldn't just reduce him to the most controversal things he said. Thats generally a good principle when it comes to evaluating anyone who publishes a lot of stuff. He doesn't hide that fact, that he is some form of conservative and you don't like conservatism (which is fine), so naturally you won't like him.

 

[berbatrick]

insecure men with self-esteem issues.

Also Kanye West (or am I just repeating what you said )

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[berbatrick]

I also wouldn't just reduce him to the most controversal things he said.

Sure, he seems to be well-cited within his field. But his fame seems to be 50-50 self-help/overextending to make political points, not the Maps of Meaning stuff or his original research at Harvard.

 

[Raoul]

Also Kanye West (or am I just repeating what you said )

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Excellent

 

[Mockney]

The whole alpha male thing was debunked ages ago by the person who coined it. It had to do with Wolves and pack behaviour, and was found to actually be bollocks.

https://knowledgenuts.com/2014/01/11/the-alpha-wolfe-is-an-outdated-myth/

But hey, facts don’t care about whatever.

 

[McUnited]

I’m still waiting to see you explain how Shapiro didn’t literally mean ‘Arab people like to live in sewage’.

Shapiro himself explains...

 

[psychdelicblues]

A Zionist who rails against identity politics.
A duplicitous hypocritical piece of shite.

 

[Tarrou]

Shapiro himself explains...

"I was specifically talking about the leadership of Hamas"...

Do you consider the tweet explained? Sounds like bullshit to me.

 

[Sweet Square]

Yes, and all that would be fine except he really overextends himself outside his field.
Last page I posted his extension from psychology to history: psychoanalysis of Hitler. Hitler was irrational because he killed Jews instead of using them as slaves (and he seemed to be extrapolating to "thus Hitler didn't want to win the war"). Literally 5 seconds of google - or just general knowledge - will contradict that.
Next, his political views aren't clear but their overall outlook is clear - a defence of hierarchy and tradition (which IMO is the core of conservatism).
So, he extends from psycho to evolutionary bio to use lobsters to explain that hierarchies are biologically hard-wired. Except (like that article you posted in General CE chat) there is a ton of data about human history (and primates) which both supports and opposes his view. To take a very simplistic view of lobster similarity to humans and make judgements of human society based on that is badly stretching - IMO he's doing it to easily justify his politics.
Finally, he (like many modern conservatives) needs to explain the apparent downfall of western cuture, which he champions. So, he extends from psychology to critical theory and sociology, with seemingly zero knowledge there, butchers every concept he comes across (pomo, 'cultural Marxism'), and builds a narrative from that.

The easiest way understand Peterson is to watch the 2016 film The Lobster


Peterson ideal society is literally the dystopia portrayed in the first half of the film(To point where I think Peterson might just be stealing ideas from the film to build a career)

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Shapiro himself explains...

‘Religious people like to feck kids’

‘Oh I was specifically talking about Catholic priests’.

Colour me convinced.

 

[caid]

Shapiro just seems like a slimy cnut so I'm basically suspicious of everything he says. I can't help but interpret comments like the above as him slipping up and being honest for a change.

 

[KirkDuyt]

‘Religious people like to feck kids’

‘Oh I was specifically talking about Catholic priests’.

Colour me convinced.

Sweet Jesus, I had never heard the guy actually speak. He sounds like a cartoon villain

 

[Raoul]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Maagge]

Is it not a cruel twist of fate that the smartest people in the world are driving cabs, cutting hair, and frequenting football forums whilst the more stupid are lecturing at universities, writing best-selling books, and giving public talks worldwide?

You seem to be implying people on football forums can't be highly educated and that selling books and giving talks are the de facto seals of approval. That's two poor assumptions in as many.

 

[McUnited]

You seem to be implying people on football forums can't be highly educated and that selling books and giving talks are the de facto seals of approval. That's two poor assumptions in as many.

I'm not suggesting that you're not highly educated, but your final sentence appears to be incomplete.

 

[Eboue]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Mockney]

There's a reason SNL40 forgot about Dennis Miller...

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[DOTA]

Spoiler

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

[

Considered posting that one in here. It's genuinely worse than what one of us would've written as a prediction of how unfunny his stand up probably would be.

I mean, even if we ignore how awkward his delivery is, cause it's obviously been a while for him, and write off the 'I forgot I'm good at this' as trying to reassure himself... he hasn't written any fecking jokes!

 

[Raoul]

There's a reason SNL40 forgot about Dennis Miller...

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

The only one who has slid more to the right is Victoria Jackson.

 

[Wibble]

Is it not a cruel twist of fate that the smartest people in the world are driving cabs, cutting hair, and frequenting football forums whilst the more stupid are lecturing at universities, writing best-selling books, and giving public talks worldwide?

Logical fallacy #3: Argument from Authority.

 

[Wibble]

I don't think Petersons message is in any way deep.

Good and evil exists. People are fallible (sinners), but can improve their own lives and help to push the world towards the good, if they are willing to put in the work. That the most used story in the history of mankind. Thats why he sees so much value in literature from the bible to Dostojewski.
I guess it gives his followers a good feeling to be part of team "save the world" against team "evil neomarxists". He gives people on the right a home/identity, that don't feel represented by liberal mainstream culture. Religion loosing cultural significance opens up space for new actors to promote different conservative identities. Peterson is repackaging the message of religion into a secular from. The difference between a cultleader and a prophet (fig.) is marketing. I think Peterson is very eloquent, charismatic and confident. He is a very good communicator and that allows him to capture a sizable audience.

So he is basically talking nonsense?

 

[Minimalist]

Rubin defended freeze peach with regard to the White House press correspondents dinner?

No? Oh okay then.

Almost like he’s right wing or something.

 

[Maagge]

I'm not suggesting that you're not highly educated, but your final sentence appears to be incomplete.

How so? English isn't my first language so I thought it was grammatically correct. At least it seems to make sense logically, although grammar, of course, doesn't always adhere to logic.

 

[Welsh Wonder]

How so? English isn't my first language so I thought it was grammatically correct. At least it seems to make sense logically, although grammar, of course, doesn't always adhere to logic.

Made sense to me.

 

[Sweet Square]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Minimalist]

Back in right-wing circlejerk-land...

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Strong words from Captain 'Shit for Brains' Dave Rubin.

Of course he's objective and all...

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

So don't forget there's a pro-gun kid for all you lemons to get behind.

#thelastliberal

 

[Eboue]

Kyle kashuv is a Ben Shapiro fanboy