Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trigger warnings, safe spaces, and fascism on college campuses

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

  • 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.

    Comment


    • 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, 06:01 PM.

      Comment


      • 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, 05:59 PM.

        Comment


        • 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.

          Comment


          • 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

            Comment


            • 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, 06:05 AM.

              Comment


              • 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.
                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".

                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.

                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.

                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.

                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.

                Comment


                • 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!

                  Comment


                  • 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

                    Comment


                    • 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!

                      Comment


                      • 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

                        Comment


                        • 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.

                          Comment


                          • Fascinating read.

                            https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-abuse/561650/
                            "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

                            Comment


                            • 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.

                              Comment


                              • 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!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X