Page 33 of 34 FirstFirst ... 2331323334 LastLast
Results 961 to 990 of 1016

Thread: Trigger warnings, safe spaces, and fascism on college campuses

  1. #961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Omaha 680 View Post
    And be precise.
    He strikes me as a narcissistic therapist and the other end of the political spectrum from self-obsessed therapists like John Dehlin. He is riding the anti-PC culture wave to relevance and has become a hero for altright and red pill types. He reduces progressives to stereotypes and misrepresents the beliefs of people like myself.

    I do not like him or his style. Clearly I struck a nerve. I’m surprised his male snowflake take is popular here. Maybe I shouldn’t be because I also find Ben Shapiro annoying and whiny and know he is well regarded here.

    Don’t worry, I still love most of you.
    Last edited by frank ryan; 05-26-2018 at 08:56 AM.
    "Just watched the speech. He lit up both sides. I loved it." -Shaka

  2. #962
    Senior Member Omaha 680's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Harlem
    Posts
    7,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frank ryan View Post
    He strikes me as a narcissistic therapist and the other end of the political spectrum from self-obsessed therapists like John Dehlin. He is riding the anti-PC culture wave to relevance and has become a hero for altright and red pill types. He reduces progressives to stereotypes and misrepresents the beliefs of people like myself.

    I do not like him or his style. Clearly I struck a nerve. I’m surprised his male snowflake take is popular here. Maybe I shouldn’t be because I also find Ben Shapiro annoying and whiny and know he is well regarded here.
    Struck a nerve? That must mean something different to you than it does to me. Your second paragraph is a little whiney (like Ben Shapiro?), but I appreciated the first. I see how someone at the opposite end of the spectrum could receive Peterson's commentary that way.



    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

  3. #963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frank ryan View Post
    He strikes me as a narcissistic therapist and the other end of the political spectrum from self-obsessed therapists like John Dehlin. He is riding the anti-PC culture wave to relevance and has become a hero for altright and red pill types. He reduces progressives to stereotypes and misrepresents the beliefs of people like myself.

    I do not like him or his style. Clearly I struck a nerve. I’m surprised his male snowflake take is popular here. Maybe I shouldn’t be because I also find Ben Shapiro annoying and whiny and know he is well regarded here.

    Don’t worry, I still love most of you.
    I don't agree with much of what he says. At times his conceit is irritating. Though it does not come across in this debate, the fascinating thing about him is exactly what the essayist (his colleague) in the news article I linked to earlier chose to deride him for: he is precise, unflinching and explains complex issues in simple terms—a tell tale sign that what he is saying is accurate and truthful.

    Where his arguments fall apart is when he presents his truth as The Truth. While truth is simple, based upon preciseness and accuracy of analysis, truth is beholden to human subjectivity. As a supposed champion of the individual, he seems to have lost sight of that simple truth.

  4. #964

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Omaha 680 View Post
    Struck a nerve? That must mean something different to you than it does to me. Your second paragraph is a little whiney (like Ben Shapiro?), but I appreciated the first. I see how someone at the opposite end of the spectrum could receive Peterson's commentary that way.



    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
    That's fair.

    Maybe tangential but, IMO and experience, therapists that have really strong agendas like Dehlin (I realize Peterson probably doesn't practice, at least I hope) they fall into the ethical pitfall of trying to influence their clients' beliefs. For example, a good therapist wouldn't push someone to leave or stay in the church, they'd support that person in coming to their own decision.
    "Just watched the speech. He lit up both sides. I loved it." -Shaka

  5. #965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    truth is beholden to human subjectivity.
    lol
    Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

  6. #966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by old_gregg View Post
    lol
    I am conservative by nature, but I am not on the right of the left. I arbitrate truth the best I can by reading and listening to many different veiwpoints. Politically, I am cautious about who's viewpoint I align myself with.

    Religiously, I prefer to place value in the viewpoint of individuals I consider to be prophets. Again, I arbitrate the truth the best I can by reading and listening. Because, per my experience, there is only one arbiter of The Truth, and that is God. Every other viewpoint is an interpretation.

  7. #967
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    47,005

    Default

    Interesting.

    I haven’t read his book. Watched the interview (that essay completely misconstrued what happened) and have watched a few YouTube videos. I see lots of people reacting negatively to him in social media but each time I go back and see what he actually says I find that he is almost always taken out of context. His pushback on political correctness and identity politics and all the nonsense going on right now in academia is right on the money and sorely needed. I couldn’t care less if he is ruffling some feathers.

    He is a bad person because he thinks he has found some truth? Oh brother.

    He has a completely different style from Ben Shapiro, btw.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  8. #968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    Interesting.

    I haven’t read his book. Watched the interview (that essay completely misconstrued what happened) and have watched a few YouTube videos. I see lots of people reacting negatively to him in social media but each time I go back and see what he actually says I find that he is almost always taken out of context. His pushback on political correctness and identity politics and all the nonsense going on right now in academia is right on the money and sorely needed. I couldn’t care less if he is ruffling some feathers.

    He is a bad person because he thinks he has found some truth? Oh brother.

    He has a completely different style from Ben Shapiro, btw.
    I agree, the incident as recounted by the essayist was misconstrued. I was embarrassed for the British journalist conducting the interview—she humiliated herself. I like some of the memes that followed:



    I also agree, much of what he says is taken out of context. Despite the ramblings of the essayist, I do not think Peterson is dangerous. What is dangerous is the fear mongering that article espoused. The black and white, good vs evil dynamic it promotes is worrisome.

    As an aside, what's odd is the only "Oh, Brother" moment in this portion of the thread is how you have misconstrued my comments. I do not think Peterson is a bad person (nor do I think he's a great person). There is a good deal of truth in what he says. That is evident, as I stated above, by the fact he is able to articulate his views so plainly. I'm simply not buying it as The Truth. And I think he is blind to the fact that he presents it as such; I am simply not a fan of the saviour complex he appears to have developed. That, and some of the crazier ideas he advances: they're not new and they're just not tenable.

    Most of all, Peterson is a fascinating character and with regards to this thread I think his criticism of academia is accurate and truthful, even if his style of delivery is caustic and possibly construed as mean.
    Last edited by tooblue; 05-26-2018 at 07:38 PM.

  9. #969
    вот так штука CardiacCoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The SLC
    Posts
    10,163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    Be it resolved, what you call political correctness, I call progress ... Pro: Michelle Goldberg, Michael Eric Dyson; Con: Jordan Peterson, Stephen Fry:

    https://www.munkdebates.com/The-Deba...al-Correctness

    I watched the entire two-hour debate.

    I’m a Jordan P. fan but it was kind of funny how he made fun of Michelle Goldberg for saying she was against violence (“Everybody is against violence and poverty”) but then when asked where the right has gone too far he says Auschwitz and Charlottesville. Uhh Jordan?

    The best thing said was Stephen Fry about how legalizing gay marriage wasn’t done because of political correctness, it was done because of basic human goodness and decency.

  10. #970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    I don't agree with much of what he says. At times his conceit is irritating. Though it does not come across in this debate, the fascinating thing about him is exactly what the essayist (his colleague) in the news article I linked to earlier chose to deride him for: he is precise, unflinching and explains complex issues in simple terms—a tell tale sign that what he is saying is accurate and truthful.

    Where his arguments fall apart is when he presents his truth as The Truth. While truth is simple, based upon preciseness and accuracy of analysis, truth is beholden to human subjectivity. As a supposed champion of the individual, he seems to have lost sight of that simple truth.
    What parts of what he says don't you agree with? I've watched quite a bit of what he has to offer and rarely find something that isn't at least close to my own thoughts.

    I must have a higher tolerance for conceit. I hear the same things about Art Morris (bird photographer)--that he comes across as arrogant and conceited. I have very little problem with people speaking with confidence, even a bit of arrogance if they can prove they have earned the right to it. The information that Peterson can pull out of his head without notes speaks to a great memory and the wide array of material that he has consumed is astounding.

    There are only two parts of his public persona that I occasionally find mildly irritating. First, he has a tendency to go into "classroom" lecture mode during conversations/debate, you can almost see it when he falls back into the comfortable. Which is why his discussions with antagonistic intellectuals don't go as well as those with similar viewpoints. Second is to turn on the irritated, angry voice too often in the same conversations. Both of these are dismissable, he's a professor, going into lecture mode is a natural avenue for him, and he's been burning the candle at both ends, given the magnifying glass currently trained on him, it's almost expected. The irritation works fine with an audience that is supportive, but not with a less friendly one.

    He got into a long boring discussion with Sam Harris about truth. I don't think he's as hung up on this as is perceived. He argues that there can be a truthful "way of being", or "way of acting" that has continued to work for many people over time and that such observations carry more weight than simply "interesting". He therefore suggests they might be "true". Much the same way that "having integrity is beneficial" is a truth, or even "the church is true" (a statement I've come to dislike over time). It only means something given context that others may not share.

    Quote Originally Posted by frank ryan View Post
    That's fair.

    Maybe tangential but, IMO and experience, therapists that have really strong agendas like Dehlin (I realize Peterson probably doesn't practice, at least I hope) they fall into the ethical pitfall of trying to influence their clients' beliefs. For example, a good therapist wouldn't push someone to leave or stay in the church, they'd support that person in coming to their own decision.
    Peterson did practice until recently. He quite often includes examples from his private practice in his lectures. He is quite clear in all of them that he doesn't solve his client's problems. You can help once maybe, but he emphasizes that it is the therapists job to help the client find their own solution, as finding a path to solution is just as important, and possible more, than the solution itself. What has he said/done that would lead to believing he has an agenda in his clinical work?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    Interesting.

    I haven’t read his book. Watched the interview (that essay completely misconstrued what happened) and have watched a few YouTube videos. I see lots of people reacting negatively to him in social media but each time I go back and see what he actually says I find that he is almost always taken out of context. His pushback on political correctness and identity politics and all the nonsense going on right now in academia is right on the money and sorely needed. I couldn’t care less if he is ruffling some feathers.
    He's not alone in this, see https://heterodoxacademy.org. Professors are becoming increasingly fearful of termination for saying the wrong thing, which is completely undermining there ability to do their jobs. They don't fear the administration, they fear the students. It's a problem.

    I think Peterson is at his best when he's pressed by non-antagonistic, but well educated interviewers.

    Jonathan Haidt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IBegL_V6AA
    Iain McGilchrist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtf4FDlpPZ8
    John Anderson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4NijLf3M-A
    Warren Farrell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5O_FLUWYmg
    Steven Pinker: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kUuURByaXc

  11. #971

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swampfrog View Post
    What parts of what he says don't you agree with? I've watched quite a bit of what he has to offer and rarely find something that isn't at least close to my own thoughts ...
    There is a part of me that very much appreciates Peterson for what he is saying about academia. I teach art and design in a post-secondary institution and over the past few years have grown increasingly careful and measured in my teaching (what I say and how I say it). Once upon a time, a long time ago on this Web site, I warned that the current climate was coming; that I would arrive at a point where I would no longer be able to offer an opinion or to have a voice and be a part of the dialogue. I was told by some here my thoughts were alarmist and silly. It’s the current climate I operate in. There’s nothing silly about not having a voice, especially now that I really do not have a voice. That’s not an exaggeration. I mostly keep my head down and my mouth shut. I’m close enough to retirement that I’m willing to ride it out.

    Setting the above aside, as for where I disagree with him is on the issue of white privilege. White privilege is real. It is dangerous to suggest it does not exist. In fairness, Peterson’s thoughts are often mis-construed as dismissing white privilege summarily. He does not dismiss white privilege summarily, so much as he dismantles the idiotic arguments in support of white-privilege-based reparative ideologies. However, Peterson does little to dissuade others (far right white supremacists) from advancing the notion that white privilege is an absolute myth. That is reckless. A psychologist must know better. And that’s the problem: he does know better but chooses to claim he’s above it all. Precisely because it risks cutting off a potent revenue stream. That demonstrates a lack of integrity.

    Now, I do agree with his sentiments that the left needs to be precise and tell every white male just how much any success they enjoy is due to white privilege. Then maybe white males can be taxed, reparations can be made, and as a society we can all start to move on. Of course, that’s not the pound of flesh the left is after and thus Peterson’s appeal to preciseness is ignored in favor inane rhetoric. And speaking of preciseness ...

    In addition to the above, Peterson’s ideas on enforced monogamy are absurd … in fact they are so unfathomably absurd, it’s now hard for me take anything else he says seriously:

    “Peterson talking about the importance of enforced monogamy isn’t alarming because it’s been taken out of context; it’s alarming precisely because of its context. If, as Peterson argues, our “dead-end” non-monogamous society can be largely blamed on birth control, what is the best way to turn back the clock to the days before the pill and “whiny” feminists who should just get hobbies? Peterson says he never suggested “government-enforced” monogamy, merely “socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated” monogamy. Let’s take him at his word. If pulling the pill off the market isn’t an option, do you just “socially promote” women not using it? Do we build a database of all the pharmacies that sell it, hoping to drive them out of business?”

    https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-...rced-monogamy/

    It’s one thing to continually shake your head and say you have been misunderstood, but you can only get away with that for so long. I agree with the writer of the article, who writes in her last paragraph:

    “It’s possible that Jordan Peterson never meant anything like this at all when he sang of “enforced monogamy.” But until he decides to follow his own tenth Rule for Life and be precise, I’ll let his past words speak for themselves.”

    In the interest of full disclosure, my 24-year-old son bought Peterson’s book. Similar to me in many ways he likes Peterson’s ideas—up to a point. He’s not fomenting over the book and rushing out to one of Peterson’s many talks or appearances. Why? Because, his family and faith traditions have already equipped him with more awareness and drive to get after life than what Peterson’s ‘rules’ can offer.

    As an aside, my 22-year-old son is getting married next week, and my 18-year-old submitted his mission papers this past week. Neither of them is really interested in the book, nor are they rushing out to one of his appearances for the same reasons as their elder brother.
    Last edited by tooblue; 05-29-2018 at 01:21 PM.

  12. #972

    Default

    I think when he says enforced monogamy he's talking about a society that has a common religious-social value that values monogamy and marriage and family such that the social rewards went against you for breaking that tradition. Kind of going back to a 1950's America ideal.

  13. #973

    Default

    I'm a big JP fan. When it comes to his take on the value of religion and scripture in a modern world, I think he's brilliant. His view has been incredibly inspiring for me. From a non-traditional, post-faith-deconstruction, sorta atheist, modern Mormon perspective that many of us here I have (I'm assuming) he has such a powerful way to explain Christian-Mormon meaning and value from this kind of perspective. It bums me out to see him getting tangled up in all these social justice war issues. Good people that I respect that are liberal or feminist minded are completely writing him off because some of the stuff he says on this. I have to broker arguments between my sons and daughters on these. I think he's super opinionated and occasionally ventures into these areas, because he ventures into nearly everything when he rambles on in some of his podcast lectures or interviews. And then someone is offended, and it blows up. And this process has brought him huge amount of fame and attention and money. So he's settled into a style where he's intentionally provocative to piss people up and increase ratings. But I think his opinion is so good and so important that it saddens me that he's doing this.

  14. #974

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jay santos View Post
    I think when he says enforced monogamy he's talking about a society that has a common religious-social value that values monogamy and marriage and family such that the social rewards went against you for breaking that tradition. Kind of going back to a 1950's America ideal.
    I can see that perspective, and understand what you are suggesting. My fear however is, what you are speaking of, is nostalgia. Nostalgia is an oft used tool of fascist ideology. I am not saying Peterson is a fascist, but rather that his thinking on this subject is highly flawed. I think Peterson really believes that the man, a devotee of incel ideology and who rented a van with the aim to run over and kill women in Toronto, would not have done so were marriage (presumably in his case an arranged marriage) a viable option for him. That's absurd.

    Were the man who rented and drove a van up on a sidewalk with the sole intent to murder random women given the opportunity to participate in an arranged marriage, or was the beneficiary of an enforced monogamy social system, the poor woman he was married to would be the first woman he killed.

    The tragedy this man inflicted on innocent people is not an opportunity for anyone to advance ideas about enforced monogamy. A clinical psychologist should know better. Unless he is consumed by his conceit.
    Last edited by tooblue; 05-29-2018 at 04:11 PM.

  15. #975

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    Setting the above aside, as for where I disagree with him is on the issue of white privilege. White privilege is real. It is dangerous to suggest it does not exist. In fairness, Peterson’s thoughts are often mis-construed as dismissing white privilege summarily. He does not dismiss white privilege summarily, so much as he dismantles the idiotic arguments in support of white-privilege-based reparative ideologies. However, Peterson does little to dissuade others (far right white supremacists) from advancing the notion that white privilege is an absolute myth. That is reckless. A psychologist must know better. And that’s the problem: he does know better but chooses to claim he’s above it all. Precisely because it risks cutting off a potent revenue stream. That demonstrates a lack of integrity.

    Now, I do agree with his sentiments that the left needs to be precise and tell every white male just how much any success they enjoy is due to white privilege. Then maybe white males can be taxed, reparations can be made, and as a society we can all start to move on. Of course, that’s not the pound of flesh the left is after and thus Peterson’s appeal to preciseness is ignored in favor inane rhetoric.
    I've read that argument before, that he doesn't spend as much time attacking the far right and it's problems relative to danger he perceives from the far left. It's an argument I think he's addressed multiple times, he spends more of his time attacking the far left because he currently views those ideologies as the most dangerous to current society right now. He believes there is a strong foothold within academia (which you mention already). He sees that it's started to get a toe hold within business organizations. It has influence in government also. It's now being pushed into high schools and lower school systems. I believe he's genuinely afraid of where this may lead, and he's not alone in this fear (heterodoxacademy.org). If you believe problem X currently has a significantly greater chance of pushing a society into mayhem than problem Y, how much time do you spend fighting problem Y? It's not hard to find him condemning the far right whenever it's asked. He has said multiple times that it's easier to identify when the right has gone too far and names racial superiority claims as a marker.

    It's not possible to avoid the consequence that because the far left is the enemy of the far right, that anyone regularly attacking the far left is going to be welcomed by the far right. I don't find fault in him here, this can't be avoided.

    I'm not persuaded at all with regard to the claim that this a monetarily driven omission. I don't think the timing of the creation of the patreon account justifies it.

    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    And speaking of preciseness ...

    In addition to the above, Peterson’s ideas on enforced monogamy are absurd … in fact they are so unfathomably absurd, it’s now hard for me take anything else he says seriously:

    “Peterson talking about the importance of enforced monogamy isn’t alarming because it’s been taken out of context; it’s alarming precisely because of its context. If, as Peterson argues, our “dead-end” non-monogamous society can be largely blamed on birth control, what is the best way to turn back the clock to the days before the pill and “whiny” feminists who should just get hobbies? Peterson says he never suggested “government-enforced” monogamy, merely “socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated” monogamy. Let’s take him at his word. If pulling the pill off the market isn’t an option, do you just “socially promote” women not using it? Do we build a database of all the pharmacies that sell it, hoping to drive them out of business?”

    https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-...rced-monogamy/

    It’s one thing to continually shake your head and say you have been misunderstood, but you can only get away with that for so long. I agree with the writer of the article, who writes in her last paragraph:

    “It’s possible that Jordan Peterson never meant anything like this at all when he sang of “enforced monogamy.” But until he decides to follow his own tenth Rule for Life and be precise, I’ll let his past words speak for themselves.”
    I found that article very hard to read and disagree with almost all of it. It has the same feeling as the Cathy Newman interview. You have a psychologist presenting statements of what the data shows and biological, evolutionary, and cultural reasons as why present situations may have come to be. Then you have someone present those arguments as the moral views of the psychologist, that somehow that's an endorsement of it.

    From the article:
    “He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Peterson said of the alleged Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
    I don't understand how so many people can misread this. There are biological and psychological reasons that men get angry at sexual rejection, in some men that is observed to result in violent behavior. This isn't condoning the behavior, not justifying it, simply observing that it happens. When something happens in observation, it is studied. The fact that many violent men are sometimes motivated because of sexual rejection is simply scientifically derived information. Sexual dominance violence is found in a wide array of animal species, including those most closely related to humans.

    He then states that "the cure is enforced monogamy." He's not stating that someone sat down and said lets enforce monogamy. His language is precise, "that's actually why monogamy emerges." It emerges, that's a term related to natural causes and evolution. It's not a statement of approval or disapproval. It's simply stating that societies will adopt policies that select for its preservation against competing societies. These types of policies are commonly referred to as "culturally enforced", cultures that adopt them survive, others don't. It doesn't mean they are morally correct or fair. So enforced monogamy helps control male violence. It's emergence goes back 10's of thousands of years. Again, it's not about right or good, it just has been effective, evolution could care less about morals. But enforced monogamy didn't emerge just because it helps control male violence, selection is more complex than that. Examine infant mortality rates, childbirth survival, harsh living conditions, and many other factors.

    So then you introduce effective birth control, modern medicine, an increasingly wealthy (at all levels) population, and other modern advances. The need for enforced monogamy for survival of societies is greatly reduced, so once the survival reasons are removed, societies move towards less monogamous. The consequences are not as serious. Peterson is pointing out that societal systems are complex--we've adapted to monogamous relationships in ways we don't understand. We will have unintended consequences, one of which appears to be increased male violence.

    I don't hear him advocating that we get rid of the pill, or go back in time, just be careful when dismantling things we don't fully understand, and don't get caught in the trap of thinking we can fully understand. For a psychologist this is nearly self-evident, the research and studies exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    In the interest of full disclosure, my 24-year-old son bought Peterson’s book. Similar to me in many ways he likes Peterson’s ideas—up to a point. He’s not fomenting over the book and rushing out to one of Peterson’s many talks or appearances. Why? Because, his family and faith traditions have already equipped him with more awareness and drive to get after life than what Peterson’s ‘rules’ can offer.

    As an aside, my 22-year-old son is getting married next week, and my 18-year-old submitted his mission papers this past week. Neither of them is really interested in the book, nor are they rushing out to one of his appearances for the same reasons as their elder brother.
    Congrats!

  16. #976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    I can see that perspective, and understand what you are suggesting. My fear however is, what you are speaking of, is nostalgia. Nostalgia is an oft used tool of fascist ideology. I am not saying Peterson is a fascist, but rather that his thinking on this subject is highly flawed. I think Peterson really believes that the man, a devotee of incel ideology and who rented a van with the aim to run over and kill women in Toronto, would not have done so were marriage (presumably in his case an arranged marriage) a viable option for him. That's absurd.

    Were the man who rented and drove a van up on a sidewalk with the sole intent to murder random women given the opportunity to participate in an arranged marriage, or was the beneficiary of an enforced monogamy social system, the poor woman he was married to would be the first woman he killed.

    The tragedy this man inflicted on innocent people is not an opportunity for anyone to advance ideas about enforced monogamy. A clinical psychologist should know better. Unless he is consumed by his conceit.
    That's odd, because I never read his statement that way at all. He almost always speaks in terms of societal averages and norms, not specific individuals. I find the above argument (which I've read elsewhere) to be a strawman. I don't think he ever suggested that what works for society in general will cure every case, only that it reduces the number of cases. He would then be speaking of a cure as a societal cure, not a universal individual cure, that would indeed be absurd.

    Which is why I'm inclined to believe that he is taken out of context a lot, because people have a very difficult time taking statistically valid evidence that is collected from large populations and avoiding the pitfall of applying it to individual cases. Social psychologists spend a lot of time working in high levels of abstraction. I believe it to be the responsibility of the critic to understand the frame of reference and accepted vocabulary of the work being critiqued. It is illogical to suggest that an expert in any field should adapt language that is used with great precision and understanding in their field to that of the audience. The audience can not be known, and language that might work for a portion of the audience will not work for another part. The work would have to be presented differently to each distinct audience member only after spending time learning about that specific individual. That Peterson has been as effective and popular as he has been only suggests he does this better than most.

    A journalist taking that approach I find unethical, which is why I hardly could stand to read through that article.

    Peterson has gone through his understanding of what happens to these types of people that take their revenge on the world and this happens over years. First, resentment, they feel they have been dealt an unfair hand and they feel jealously towards those that are succeeding at that which they experience failure. Second disgust, resentment changes to targeted feelings towards those successful individuals, or collection of individuals that represent a class of people who are contaminated. Third contempt, that the world suffers because of this class of people. Fourth, a generalizing that any existence in which people of the representative class are allowed to succeed is fatally flawed and deserves destruction. At which point some of them take action against existence itself, it no longer is targeted at those perceived to have slighted them.

  17. #977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swampfrog View Post
    I've read that argument before, that he doesn't spend as much time attacking the far right and it's problems relative to danger he perceives from the far left. It's an argument I think he's addressed multiple times, he spends more of his time attacking the far left because he currently views those ideologies as the most dangerous to current society right now. He believes there is a strong foothold within academia (which you mention already). He sees that it's started to get a toe hold within business organizations. It has influence in government also. It's now being pushed into high schools and lower school systems. I believe he's genuinely afraid of where this may lead, and he's not alone in this fear (heterodoxacademy.org). If you believe problem X currently has a significantly greater chance of pushing a society into mayhem than problem Y, how much time do you spend fighting problem Y? It's not hard to find him condemning the far right whenever it's asked. He has said multiple times that it's easier to identify when the right has gone too far and names racial superiority claims as a marker.

    It's not possible to avoid the consequence that because the far left is the enemy of the far right, that anyone regularly attacking the far left is going to be welcomed by the far right. I don't find fault in him here, this can't be avoided.

    I'm not persuaded at all with regard to the claim that this a monetarily driven omission. I don't think the timing of the creation of the patreon account justifies it.
    Yes, he condemns the far right, but I am incredulous concerning his sincerity. The money trail is evident and not up for debate. It is precisely what it is. You can't shake the hand of the devil and not actually shake the hand of the devil. Good intentions are not enough to save one from consequences. And there are consequences. There is no win win here.

    I found that article very hard to read and disagree with almost all of it. It has the same feeling as the Cathy Newman interview. You have a psychologist presenting statements of what the data shows and biological, evolutionary, and cultural reasons as why present situations may have come to be. Then you have someone present those arguments as the moral views of the psychologist, that somehow that's an endorsement of it.

    From the article:

    I don't understand how so many people can misread this. There are biological and psychological reasons that men get angry at sexual rejection, in some men that is observed to result in violent behavior. This isn't condoning the behavior, not justifying it, simply observing that it happens. When something happens in observation, it is studied. The fact that many violent men are sometimes motivated because of sexual rejection is simply scientifically derived information. Sexual dominance violence is found in a wide array of animal species, including those most closely related to humans.

    He then states that "the cure is enforced monogamy." He's not stating that someone sat down and said lets enforce monogamy. His language is precise, "that's actually why monogamy emerges." It emerges, that's a term related to natural causes and evolution. It's not a statement of approval or disapproval. It's simply stating that societies will adopt policies that select for its preservation against competing societies. These types of policies are commonly referred to as "culturally enforced", cultures that adopt them survive, others don't. It doesn't mean they are morally correct or fair. So enforced monogamy helps control male violence. It's emergence goes back 10's of thousands of years. Again, it's not about right or good, it just has been effective, evolution could care less about morals. But enforced monogamy didn't emerge just because it helps control male violence, selection is more complex than that. Examine infant mortality rates, childbirth survival, harsh living conditions, and many other factors.

    So then you introduce effective birth control, modern medicine, an increasingly wealthy (at all levels) population, and other modern advances. The need for enforced monogamy for survival of societies is greatly reduced, so once the survival reasons are removed, societies move towards less monogamous. The consequences are not as serious. Peterson is pointing out that societal systems are complex--we've adapted to monogamous relationships in ways we don't understand. We will have unintended consequences, one of which appears to be increased male violence.

    I don't hear him advocating that we get rid of the pill, or go back in time, just be careful when dismantling things we don't fully understand, and don't get caught in the trap of thinking we can fully understand. For a psychologist this is nearly self-evident, the research and studies exist.
    The article is merely presented as an alternative viewpoint. It's not even in the same realm as the Cathy Newman interview. Peterson supposedly champions alternative viewpoints—in his world view they should be embraced. That's my reasoning for posting the link here. In that light, then, the article is easy to read if heterodoxy is an ideal worth striving for.

    With regards to the article, it’s all good and well to point out biologically, historically and self-evidently, based on research, certain human conditions have and do exist to the benefit or detriment of society. You have done so here thoughtfully and effectively with measured passion. In contrast Peterson is purposely didactic in his approach. It is his nature, as has been nurtured by the circumstances he has meticulously constructed. His fame did not come by accident. The timing of its genesis may not have been planned, but preparations were made well in advance of the inception of his ascendency.

    He has since backed away from his enforced monogamy comments … or at least gone mute for the time being. Is it precisely because he is aware what he is espousing is problematic?

    I guess we’ll have to wait and see how he addresses those ideas in the future. I would prefer he not—it’s foolishness. He is better served staying true to his principled fight against academia.
    Last edited by tooblue; 05-29-2018 at 06:01 PM.

  18. #978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swampfrog View Post
    That's odd, because I never read his statement that way at all. He almost always speaks in terms of societal averages and norms, not specific individuals. I find the above argument (which I've read elsewhere) to be a straw man. I don't think he ever suggested that what works for society in general will cure every case, only that it reduces the number of cases. He would then be speaking of a cure as a societal cure, not a universal individual cure, that would indeed be absurd.

    Which is why I'm inclined to believe that he is taken out of context a lot, because people have a very difficult time taking statistically valid evidence that is collected from large populations and avoiding the pitfall of applying it to individual cases. Social psychologists spend a lot of time working in high levels of abstraction. I believe it to be the responsibility of the critic to understand the frame of reference and accepted vocabulary of the work being critiqued. It is illogical to suggest that an expert in any field should adapt language that is used with great precision and understanding in their field to that of the audience. The audience can not be known, and language that might work for a portion of the audience will not work for another part. The work would have to be presented differently to each distinct audience member only after spending time learning about that specific individual. That Peterson has been as effective and popular as he has been only suggests he does this better than most.

    A journalist taking that approach I find unethical, which is why I hardly could stand to read through that article.

    Peterson has gone through his understanding of what happens to these types of people that take their revenge on the world and this happens over years. First, resentment, they feel they have been dealt an unfair hand and they feel jealously towards those that are succeeding at that which they experience failure. Second disgust, resentment changes to targeted feelings towards those successful individuals, or collection of individuals that represent a class of people who are contaminated. Third contempt, that the world suffers because of this class of people. Fourth, a generalizing that any existence in which people of the representative class are allowed to succeed is fatally flawed and deserves destruction. At which point some of them take action against existence itself, it no longer is targeted at those perceived to have slighted them.
    His beliefs are founded in his ideology and his ideology is precisely what you have laid out: there is no straw man if those are in fact his beliefs, regardless of whether or not he is addressing a single individual or society in general.

    I can certainly accept the idea that the journalist acted unethically and twisted his words. I can also accept the idea that Peterson misspoke. But what is the reason Peterson is not addressing the issue currently? I would like to hear some preciseness from him. Maybe he has done so on one his pod casts? I'm not a subscriber so I can't say.

    Again, he would do well to stick to addressing the dilemma of leftist ideologies in academia.
    Last edited by tooblue; 05-29-2018 at 05:59 PM.

  19. #979

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    His beliefs are founded in his ideology and his ideology is precisely what you have laid out: there is no straw man if those are in fact his beliefs, regardless of whether or not he is addressing a single individual or society in general.

    I can certainly accept the idea that the journalist acted unethically and twisted his words. I can also accept the idea that Peterson misspoke. But what is the reason Peterson is not addressing the issue currently? I would like to hear some preciseness from him. Maybe he has done so on one his pod casts? I'm not a subscriber so I can't say.

    Again, he would do well to stick to addressing the dilemma of leftist ideologies in academia.
    You can read his follow-up here:

    https://jordanbpeterson.com/media/on...rced-monogamy/

    I think a lot of people are getting hung up on the word enforced. Understandably so, it has connotation that is extremely negative in this context if read while ignorant of how this term might be used within the field of study being discussed. If a policy is worth following, how do you enforce it? From dictionary.com:

    to impress or urge (an argument, contention, etc.) forcibly; lay stress upon:
    He enforced his argument by adding details.
    Every single academic discipline on the planet runs into this issue. They all have words or phrases commonly used and well understood which describe specific phenomena within the context of the discipline. When people unfamiliar with the literature hear or see the word the first impression is set and retreating from it is difficult. In this case I think it should be read as strongly encourage or something along those lines--because that's what it means in this context. That is how communication works, some words or phrases cannot be interpreted outside of context. Some languages are much worse than English in this regard.

    In this case, I only see him arguing that we don't haphazardly do away with social constraints that enforce monogamy. The violent tendency is not just in a few men, the problem is significantly worse than that. The claim is that monogamy helps prevent men from falling down the multiple levels described previously. They are not bad violent men to begin with, they make good partners, you would never suspect they are capable of violence. His argument is such capabilities are in all of us, and I don't disagree with him there. We are all capable of descending. He often cites the book "Ordinary Men" written about common decent middle aged men recruited in Germany to serve as policemen in Poland during WWII. How ordinary men turned into the kind of policemen who would march a pregnant woman from her home to a predetermined location and shoot her in the back of the head. It's in the interest of society and all of us to not have people follow such paths.

    He's followed up in Q&A in at least one talk on his book tour, I can find it if you want.

  20. #980
    One man.....one pie Moliere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The Republic of Tejas
    Posts
    20,658

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frank ryan View Post
    He strikes me as a narcissistic therapist and the other end of the political spectrum from self-obsessed therapists like John Dehlin. He is riding the anti-PC culture wave to relevance and has become a hero for altright and red pill types. He reduces progressives to stereotypes and misrepresents the beliefs of people like myself.

    I do not like him or his style. Clearly I struck a nerve. I’m surprised his male snowflake take is popular here. Maybe I shouldn’t be because I also find Ben Shapiro annoying and whiny and know he is well regarded here.

    Don’t worry, I still love most of you.
    Ben Shapiro is well regarded here? One of my favorite things in the political discussion in this board is frank’s weird projections of what everyone believes and thinks.
    "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

  21. #981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swampfrog View Post
    You can read his follow-up here:

    https://jordanbpeterson.com/media/on...rced-monogamy/

    I think a lot of people are getting hung up on the word enforced. Understandably so, it has connotation that is extremely negative in this context if read while ignorant of how this term might be used within the field of study being discussed. If a policy is worth following, how do you enforce it? From dictionary.com:



    Every single academic discipline on the planet runs into this issue. They all have words or phrases commonly used and well understood which describe specific phenomena within the context of the discipline. When people unfamiliar with the literature hear or see the word the first impression is set and retreating from it is difficult. In this case I think it should be read as strongly encourage or something along those lines--because that's what it means in this context. That is how communication works, some words or phrases cannot be interpreted outside of context. Some languages are much worse than English in this regard.

    In this case, I only see him arguing that we don't haphazardly do away with social constraints that enforce monogamy. The violent tendency is not just in a few men, the problem is significantly worse than that. The claim is that monogamy helps prevent men from falling down the multiple levels described previously. They are not bad violent men to begin with, they make good partners, you would never suspect they are capable of violence. His argument is such capabilities are in all of us, and I don't disagree with him there. We are all capable of descending. He often cites the book "Ordinary Men" written about common decent middle aged men recruited in Germany to serve as policemen in Poland during WWII. How ordinary men turned into the kind of policemen who would march a pregnant woman from her home to a predetermined location and shoot her in the back of the head. It's in the interest of society and all of us to not have people follow such paths.

    He's followed up in Q&A in at least one talk on his book tour, I can find it if you want.
    That's quite the explanation isn't it. Interesting. It illustrates the point I am making. Earlier in this thread I defend Peterson and even laud his ability to communicate:

    " ... he is precise, unflinching and explains complex issues in simple terms—a tell tale sign that what he is saying is accurate and truthful."

    In this instance he failed that test. Consider to what great lengths he has gone to in order to clarify his position and evidently his comments—which we now know he made, due to the inherent defensiveness represented by his blog post. Yes, his comments were not considered in context by the reporter. Yes, I am more certain in my opinion that it was unethical of the reporter to frame the comments the way they were in the New York Times article. However, no reasonable person can say: "hey, you know maybe that reporter should've studied up first on "The Competition–Violence Hypothesis," or theories on "Why Men Commit Crimes (and why they Desist)" before goading Jordan Peterson into commenting about the terrible incident in Toronto.

    Bottom line is, Alek Minassian didn't commit multiple homicides running people over with a van in Toronto due to the escalation of "trivial altercations," that supposedly could be quelled by making him more competitive in the "sexual market place." Some complex reasoning is required to connect the dots Peterson, now in retrospect, has put out for public consumption.

    In his conceit, Peterson was careless with his thoughts and as I have stated, as a clinical psychologist should not have commented as he did. Can he be forgiven for the reporter or general public not being as well-read and informed as he is on this subject? No, he can't. Why, because if one of his gifts is explaining complex issues in simple terms, he should've known better. That's the price he pays for his ascendency.

    Despite his protestations to the contrary, his commentary is appallingly trivial because of his dismissiveness in highlighting his critics "abject ignorance of the relevant literature." He wasn't speaking to a fellow academic, but rather to a reporter and in turn the average reader of the New York Times.

    If I get a chance, I may investigate his linked articles. Of course I am at an advantage. I can likely get free access to them through my institution. But what do other people do? I guess if they don't want to pay they just take his word for it that the research supports his supposition. Convenient.

    Edit: my last comment is snide, and I'm sorry for that. It's good to actually have a discussion here once and a while and I don't wish to contribute to an unduly adversarial environment. I stand by my criticism, but acknowledge that I was wrong in thinking he didn't attempt to clarify his position. I should've investigated on my own. Again, I wish he would stick to his principled fight against leftist ideology in academia.
    Last edited by tooblue; 05-30-2018 at 06:05 AM.

  22. #982

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    That's quite the explanation isn't it. Interesting. It illustrates the point I am making. Earlier in this thread I defend Peterson and even laud his ability to communicate:

    " ... he is precise, unflinching and explains complex issues in simple terms—a tell tale sign that what he is saying is accurate and truthful."
    I didn't comment on this point before, but I disagree with some of it, he can be those things, but on some topics he's as long winded as they come. Just listen to a 2 and a half hour lecture on the Genesis bible stories, and then realize he's done seventeen of them.

    His summary at the end is pretty succinct:

    So, let’s summarize. Men get frustrated when they are not competitive in the sexual marketplace (note: the fact that they DO get frustrated does not mean that they SHOULD get frustrated. Pointing out the existence of something is not the same as justifying its existence). Frustrated men tend to become dangerous, particularly if they are young. The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially. The manifold social conventions tilting most societies toward monogamy constitute such regulation.

    That’s all.

    No recommendation of police-state assignation of woman to man (or, for that matter, man to woman).

    No arbitrary dealing out of damsels to incels.

    Nothing scandalous (all innuendo and suggestive editing to the contrary)

    Just the plain, bare, common-sense facts: socially-enforced monogamous conventions decrease male violence. In addition (and not trivially) they also help provide mothers with comparatively reliable male partners, and increase the probability that stable, father-intact homes will exist for children.
    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    In this instance he failed that test. Consider to what great lengths he has gone to in order to clarify his position and evidently his comments—which we now know he made, due to the inherent defensiveness represented by his blog post. Yes, his comments were not considered in context by the reporter. Yes, I am more certain in my opinion that it was unethical of the reporter to frame the comments the way they were in the New York Times article. However, no reasonable person can say: "hey, you know maybe that reporter should've studied up first on "The Competition–Violence Hypothesis," or theories on "Why Men Commit Crimes (and why they Desist)" before goading Jordan Peterson into commenting about the terrible incident in Toronto.
    What good is a reporter if they don't actually do this? The reporter shouldn't have done this prior to the interview, but once the comments were made it is exactly the duty of the reporter to find out what they mean in the context of social and evolutionary psychology. That defines the job "journalist".

    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    Bottom line is, Alek Minassian didn't commit multiple homicides running people over with a van in Toronto due to the escalation of "trivial altercations," that supposedly could be quelled by making him more competitive in the "sexual market place." Some complex reasoning is required to connect the dots Peterson, now in retrospect, has put out for public consumption.
    I don't disagree here, the cited literature in his response deals with the competitive male psyche where violence is possible between competing males. What Alek Minassian did is not that, but the result of of years of social rejection. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...to-van-attack/. Taking the time to explain how such individuals devolve into a state where committing larger atrocities is possible he has done before, but not in this instance. He's also suggested that the coverage of such atrocities has accelerated the descent of other individuals, because the journalists are doing there job on reporting these events and trying to expose the thought processes of those willing to engage in this kind of mayhem.

    I will fully take ownership of my own bias, I've spent hours watching Peterson videos and have had the same reaction as Jay Santos. I've found the information he is presenting and the format to be compelling, and as an entrenched 50 year old, it has provided personal motivation to contend with my own weaknesses. I haven't discovered this kind of motivation in 50 years of church attendance. It's likely more complex than that as there are other factors in life that are always changing.

    I also have read every criticism that I can get my hands on. To at least expose myself to alternative thinking and reaction.

    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    In his conceit, Peterson was careless with his thoughts and as I have stated, as a clinical psychologist should not have commented as he did. Can he be forgiven for the reporter or general public not being as well-read and informed as he is on this subject? No, he can't. Why, because if one of his gifts is explaining complex issues in simple terms, he should've known better. That's the price he pays for his ascendency.

    Despite his protestations to the contrary, his commentary is appallingly trivial because of his dismissiveness in highlighting his critics "abject ignorance of the relevant literature." He wasn't speaking to a fellow academic, but rather to a reporter and in turn the average reader of the New York Times.
    I still disagree with this point, I don't think the responsibility lies on the interviewee, it's on the reporter. When Peterson speaks directly to a crowd, he talks to the audience in terms they understand, and takes a long time to present his arguments and conclusions. When being interviewed, such lengthy arguments are not expected nor warranted. I repeat my submission that the very job description of reporter or journalist requires research such that the end reader does not have to do it themselves. That many journalists have abdicated this responsibility is disheartening.

    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    If I get a chance, I may investigate his linked articles. Of course I am at an advantage. I can likely get free access to them through my institution. But what do other people do? I guess if they don't want to pay they just take his word for it that the research supports his supposition. Convenient.
    Again, that's the reporters job, they should have researched the available literature, and presented it in the article so that the reader didn't have to deal with the single source problem you mention.

    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    Edit: my last comment is snide, and I'm sorry for that. It's good to actually have a discussion here once and a while and I don't wish to contribute to an unduly adversarial environment. I stand by my criticism, but acknowledge that I was wrong in thinking he didn't attempt to clarify his position. I should've investigated on my own. Again, I wish he would stick to his principled fight against leftist ideology in academia.
    Difference of opinion is good, even if I don't agree with you on all points, it's helped clarify my own thinking and position on things, which is exactly what free speech helps do. Thanks for the discussion, though it's probably close to becoming repetitive.

  23. #983
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    19,018

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moliere View Post
    Ben Shapiro is well regarded here? One of my favorite things in the political discussion in this board is frank’s weird projections of what everyone believes and thinks.
    I think Frank is usually spot on about what we think... For example, he is the only one to predict that y'all would secretly vote for Drumpf leading to his win over the most qualified presidential candidate in history. And Shaka is one of the most honest members of this board for admitting that he actually did vote for Drumpf.
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  24. #984
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    47,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ted View Post
    I think Frank is usually spot on about what we think... For example, he is the only one to predict that y'all would secretly vote for Drumpf leading to his win over the most qualified presidential candidate in history. And Shaka is one of the most honest members of this board for admitting that he actually did vote for Drumpf.
    More honest than you?
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  25. #985
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    19,018

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    More honest than you?
    Maybe or maybe not... I did vote for Johnson (and not for Drumpf), however, even though he wasn't the best libertarian candidate to run for president in history. (That honor goes to Ron Paul.) I would have voted for Drumpf, however, if he and Hillary were the only two on the ballot.

    Yeah, you all that say you voted for McMuffin... I think you're full of it.
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  26. #986
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    47,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ted View Post
    Maybe or maybe not... I did vote for Johnson (and not for Drumpf), however, even though he wasn't the best libertarian candidate to run for president in history. (That honor goes to Ron Paul.) I would have voted for Drumpf, however, if he and Hillary were the only two on the ballot.

    Yeah, you all that say you voted for McMuffin... I think you're full of it.
    Haha. Says the guy pimping trump 24/7.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  27. #987

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    Haha. Says the guy pimping trump 24/7.
    Ron Paul is a weirdo who wrote very racist newsletters. All that said, Ted’s right, he probably was the best lolbertarian candidate. The bar is low.
    "Just watched the speech. He lit up both sides. I loved it." -Shaka

  28. #988
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    47,005
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  29. #989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    That was interesting, on many levels. Thanks for the link. Was it here that I read the data on how much money in salary is spent in the diversity department at the University of Michigan? Tuition continues to climb, in part to pay bureaucrats to reward the first person to put on their victim sign, and punish everyone else. Crazy.

  30. #990
    My Mic Sounds Nice falafel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Las Wegas!
    Posts
    28,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    I agree, very interesting. This passage in particular for me:

    Now, in many regards, universities monitor the sexuality of their students more intrusively than in the 1950s. There are fulltime employees of American universities whose job is to sit young people down and interrogate them about when and where and how they touched another person sexually, and how it felt, and what signs and sounds and words and gestures made them believe that consent had been granted. This was how homosexuals used to be thrown out of schools and sports teams and the military; this is how young women were punished for acting on their sexual impulses by a wide variety of American institutions in the past. This is beyond the overreach of the modern university; this is an affront to the most essential and irreducible of all of the American ideas: the freedom of the individual.
    Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

    "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •