Humans aren't driven by logic, they're driven by emotion and logic usually just accommodates how people feel. I don't think suicide is illogical, I think it's motivated by negative emotions which cloud judgement.

I hear that the good things in life make people stay but aren't those just to make life bearable? — Darkneos

You know that people can lack material wealth, friends, love etc and still enjoy life. What makes life unbearable is depression, pain, fear, anxiety, extreme stress and usually a combination of these things. So I think it is warranted to question whether such a person is in a state of mind to make such a decision. I would deal with it case-by-case but as I said, healthy, happy people do not contemplate suicide because the balance is tilted in favour of living by default.

Even if someone appears to be clear thinking, they're nonetheless tormented by negative emotions and it's only natural that people would want to help them. Many people who don't know you would like you to enjoy life, that's just how they are. Friends and family don't want to lose a loved one to suicide. Death anxiety, lol, that's what you really think? How convenient.

The reasons people are giving for "why I choose to live" are complete bullshit because even if we took all those things away, they'd still want to live. That's how living things are, they want to keep living and don't give humans too much credit, they're animals not computers.

Am I to understand that your solution is to... demand that people behave themselves? BLM and Antifa are using free speech too, what do you suggest be done about it?

I suggest that whenever you hear that someone has been unfairly criticised for being politically incorrect or whatever, go write to that business or person showing your support. That's something you can do.

Whether people do or do not see it that way is just another part of the story they're telling, about themselves and their lives. A fiction book is a fine example, it only describes the things of interest to the author, with the goal of giving only certain information. Emphasising, characterising and narrativising in a way that depicts even this fictional world in a way which could only have ever been done by the author, with their specific intent, feelings and ideas.

If we are both given a long set of facts about a fictional world, of which we must tell a story, our stories will likely not look remotely the same. We will interpret things differently and construct an entirely different narrative, the reader may get a totally different impression of the world we were asked to describe by reading your book or mine. I can say that your book got it wrong, maybe that makes you feel like your perspective is being tossed aside. There is a problem because in reality, when we are describing important issues, I do not necessarily want others to interpret them differently, take this discussion about covid 19 for example. The stakes are high, people want others to understand a specific point and we can't necessarily accept it when others don't agree.

There are many circumstances where we can't just agree to disagree, to see the differences in our perspectives as the harmless consequence of differences between us, which can never be completely reduced. This conflict can never be resolved, only mediated, with maturity and understanding, that our stories can only ever be different, mirroring the differences that exist between people, their experiences and all the things that helped create the narrative.

Normal and healthy psychology has changed with the seasons. Nature doesn't really take care of it, we do. Nature also causes death as well so your points are moot. You can't decide who you're attracted to but you can decide to live or not. You're proving there isn't a good reason to live. If you were to die you'd be done with this whole dance. People talk about the struggle as if it's noble but why? That just sounds like death anxiety trying to rationalize sticking around. — Darkneos

You logically justify your depression like others logically justify their happiness, truthfully, neither of you are correct. It's just that you can't possibly account for the hormones and genetics which govern how you think and feel. Humans aren't just the sum of their choices, there's an underlying biological reality which affects how we think and interpret. I'm not afraid to die, I see death through the lens of the dead, no fear, no regrets, no anything. If one does choose to die, that's their choice but their thinking was likely a result of some underlying problems, that person was likely in need of help. I'm not going to treat it like a logical choice made by a clear-thinking person unless there are special circumstances.

It is near-universal that people want to live. I do not think people want to live due to "the good things", it's just normal, healthy psychology to want to live. People no more "choose" than they "choose" to be attracted to the gender they're attracted to. It's just one of those things that nature takes care of, we don't need to make a choice.

Even if I gave you all my reasons for wanting to live and you shot them all down, proving they were all poor - I'd still want to live, even if I decided I didn't want to live - I'd still want to live. Just like I can't decide who I'm attracted to.

I really don't think it's anything more than that.

We are storytellers who tell stories that could only have been told by us. Imperfect stories that don't capture the full truth and can't. If we were only ever honest, unimpeded by our egos, the conflict caused by our contradicting narratives would not disappear. There's no greater truth to look for together, no "perfect" story. We can help each other improve the stories we tell, that's it.

The issue with social media is that it has empowered a very small minority to have a very large voice, it's really got not much to do with larger society. Even though your OP is fearmongering, most of the responses to you just go the other way and pretend like there's fairness in the way Twitter mobs treat people, which is silly. It's not the state that's trying to silence you, it's random people but I don't think there's anything which can be done about that. People have a right to call you a racist homophobe and demand you be fired - free speech has to allow that and if your employer sacks you because thousands of people said they'd boycott the business or because it's bad publicity otherwise then that's their decision.

Do you have an intelligent solution for us to consider or are you just going to complain generally about an exaggerated concern? Also, how often does this happen?

You twist my words but oh well, each owner can make the decision based on their needs and circumstances but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're not taking into account the dog's wellbeing. If aliens kidnapped me and cut off my balls I'd be horrified but my sensibilities as a human are not the basis for how dogs should be treated. The process of neutering a dog is done under anaesthesia, the pain lasts a few days. We know that the act is done for either the benefit of the owner, dog or wider society and not with ill-intent. There's really nothing in your response to indicate that we're dealing with an animal rights issue, I think both owners and dogs would be disadvantaged if neutering was banned.

Inexperienced dog owners will have an easier time with a neutered dog, that's why it's advised. If there was a study which showed: "neutered dogs are more likely to be depressed" then the whole discussion could change, right? Until then, it's just you finding it ugly, rather than dogs being taken advantage of.

You're a human, who cares about things being in their "natural state", complaining about humans treating dogs without compassion, thinking only of themselves. Dogs don't know about "natural states", I have said that the dog is better off being neutered (from the dogs perspective) do you have any counter to this? I literally explained what you needed to argue for in the next sentence already.

Not really, the reality is that when your dog misbehaves, the dog is the one who is punished. A better comparison for humans would be for example, whether orcas should be kept in captivity because orcas are not domesticated animals. Many are totally against any orca captivity but especially at the theme parks for example.

I'm just pointing out that you are not going to let your dog be sexually active, your dog is not in a position to act on its instincts regardless of whether you neuter him or not. It is hypocrisy to say that you're going to allow your dog to be natural and free (not neutered) but then restrict his access to females, reprimand him for humping people, pull on his leash whenever he makes a move on a female dog. The dog doesn't care about being "natural" like you do, so really, the dog is better off not having these desires and urges, since they're not going to be satisfied anyway. It's not the law to neuter your dog, don't neuter him, whatever but I don't really think your dog is going to ever be happier because of it.

Do you even have a counter-argument? Why do you think the dog would be happier not being neutered?

What do you think about the nationalisation of land and lending of land like what exists in Singapore? Or advocating for a smart tax system and economic redistribution system which allows the many to benefit from our increasingly efficient productivity capacity? The issue I think is as much about existing assets both in land and capital, not just production.

People say Socialism exists in Canada and the Scandinavian countries and it does but what actually exists is a mixed economy. Instead of saying "Capitalism is the problem and Socialism is the solution", which leads one to the conclusion that for example, Canada might be trying to abolish Capitalism and replace it with Socialism. It'd be better to talk about what industries or services are mixed and basically, where Capitalism is screwing the average citizen and it might be better for the government to provide an alternative.

Automation is one of the big problems we're going to face in the future, where economies are enriched by cheaper and more effective production but at the expense of needing fewer employees. Consumers benefit but not really because millions of quality jobs disappear and all the profit goes to the business owners. At some point, we just need to accept the economy doesn't need everyone and yet everyone needs to be able to live.

I agree with more regulation of the banks and even taking many of the responsibilities and privileges away from the private banks.

Owning a large, highly profitable business seems to be too rewarding, it's great if someone had a good idea and made money off it but the fact that it's billions needs to be addressed in some way. These are just general economic recommendations, in terms of birth rate, I don't know.

Singapore has a declining birth rate too, yet boasts a 90% homeownership rate and far easier access to homeownership compared to Western nations. Canada has a lower birth rate than the US and the UK at 1.5 births per woman in 2018, compared to the US at 1.73 and UK at 1.68 and Singapore is even lower at 1.1. I live in Australia which is at 1.7 and home prices here are incredibly high right now, there is a lower average GDP here than in Singapore yet a similar cost of living, also far fewer Australians own their homes (68% to 90% of Singapore).

Hungary and Romania have the highest rates of homeownership in Europe, at 91% and 95% but have birth rates of 1.55 and 1.76 respectively.

Culturally speaking, millennials need to use their 20s at university, building up their career, the average age of having a first child has increased in the majority of developed countries and by five years or more since the 1960s. If your first child is later then the expectation of it being likely to have fewer children is logical.

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/People/Mother's-mean-age-at-first-birth

Despite the differences between the US and a country like Sweden, the birth rate is about the same. Despite all the differences in social benefits, socialism, crime rates, economic differences and etc. Wealth inequality doesn't seem to explain it either, with both Sweden and the US having high Gini wealth coefficients along with countries like the Philippines and others that have very high birth rates. While I think economic security could dissuade individuals from starting families, across the board, it does not appear to be the cause or a solution for low birth rates because if it was, why would the US and Sweden have similar birth rates? Isn't what you'd like to see, basically the US and UK becoming more like Sweden?

Reusing my criticisms of you again? Okay, these three pieces of evidence are what you're sticking with, lmao.

His view of relationships is in terms of utility *for* men, such as his bizarre notions of enforced monogamy to make teenaged boys less likely to shoot up their own school. Don't fancy that socially awkward, aggressive, racist guy in your class? Tough shit, JP says women should arrange themselves to benefit men so that men don't have to control themselves. — Kenosha Kid

Yep, he is saying women should be forced to date socially awkward, aggressive and racist dudes against their will. Peterson, says women should arrange themselves to benefit men so that men don't have to control themselves.

Oh, calling that hysterical is way out of line, my apologies, highly reasonable.

This is you when you're trying: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9506/cosmology-and-determinism

And here's you when you're talking about politics.

Here you're claiming to be very familiar with JP's words so no such out. It is reasonable to assume that you're familiar with the kind of stuff I've mentioned and you defend his patriarchal, non-egalitarian, rape-dismissive, incel-esque views as perfectly fine and not deserving of the label 'sexist'. — Kenosha Kid

He was talking about a survey of university-educated women in the '50s, most of whom espoused that sentiment. JP believes, as counterpunch clearly believes, that these women had no right to complain: men say it is good enough for them, therefore they should too. That is oppression. — Kenosha Kid

Just three pieces of shoddy evidence, you write with such anger and indignation but where's the evidence? When I say it's not good enough, you say that just shows how lousy my character is. Whatever, I did not actually expect that your argument for Peterson's sexism would be this weak but I should have, considering what else I've seen from you. But I'll stop here, we're going in circles, each understands where the other stands.

You are the most uncharitable, unreliable narrator, I have come across and I am in the middle of telling you as such. If you think that characterising peoples views in the worst possible way constitutes evidence, then we've found the problem and there's not much else to say. Hysterical and ridiculous, do you actually have more than you're giving me or is this it? Not impressed, this is worse than I imagined.

That article is the source for most of your argument, I don't care if you just read someone else reporting on the article instead, that's where two of your examples came from. The misunderstanding of enforced monogamy as an anthropological term which talks only of an already existing mainly social and cultural enforcement, as some kind of absurd incel idea where we take women and force them to be partnered with men. You were totally wrong about your statements, demonstrably wrong and what is the response? Did you back down, apologise, admit you're wrong - as I did? Nope, you're actually defending yourself! Do you expect me to think you'll back down on anything when you can't even back down on this one issue?

JP is evidently overtly sexist, i.e. a non-sexist person could not have said the things he said and meant them. — Kenosha Kid

How he meant them? What a horrible joke, you mean the hysterical performance of how you interpreted quotes with no context and a clear misunderstanding of what he meant by enforced monogamy? Okay, buddy. The reason I made it clear that nobody forced me to apologise is that I'm not going to have that be the measurement for who is right and who is wrong. You won't admit any weakness, even though, if you admitted you were at least wrong about enforced monogamy, I would not use it to discredit everything else, you just can't do it.

There's reasonable doubt in all of your examples, you did not isolate sexist motivations or meanings, you just asserted them. There is no pattern because you gave only three examples, one of them is just wildly wrong, the others, I can't really say but innocent until proven guilty, is how it works when dealing with such powerful condemnations. Insulting me doesn't help overcome that problem, if he's so bad, then you should be able to easily give me multiple, non-contentious examples. If I asked you for dirt on Trump, you'd be giving me non-contentious, unambiguous racism and sexism and it'd look obvious that you were right. You wouldn't need to all this conjecture in that case.

I knew this but I really need the context on why Peterson made the various claims about "these housewives". Do you know anything about that?

I thought you were familiar enough with JP to know when I'm misrepresenting him? It's in his book. Read it, don't read it, just drop the claim to expertise. — Kenosha Kid

I didn't claim to be an expert on Peterson, I just said I'm very familiar.

I just did. Are you claiming he didn't say: — Kenosha Kid

I don't know the context, who are "these" suburban housewives, I imagine he's talking about a small number of people, perhaps even as small as 3-4, who he actually listened to. Not the entire demographic of suburban housewives across America. I don't know what they actually said, thus, cannot judge it. You can't give me a quote taken out of context, with ambiguous meaning, and demand I accept it as foolproof evidence. This quote seems to be from here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

The same article which states your same misinterpretation of what enforced monogamy is, right?. Great article for demonstrating how bad Peterson is, too bad it's full of crap and written with malicious intent.

You said you could justify your comments about JP being sexist and what do you give me? Misinterpretations, a quote about the reliability of a rape accusation and an out of context quote that means shit all.

The point is that you're exhibiting a pattern of behaviour at losing your shit when a prejudiced person is called out on their prejudice then having to back down when you can't justify yourself. — Kenosha Kid

As I said, nobody forced me to apologise and I did not "have" to back down. Just like you can be totally wrong here and not back down, never apologise, it's always an option, actually, it's what most people do.

Don't fancy that socially awkward, aggressive, racist guy in your class? Tough shit, JP says women should arrange themselves to benefit men so that men don't have to control themselves. — Kenosha Kid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn60-8Ql_44&ab_channel=DoseofTruth

(On which, I can't think of a worse indictment of JP than his willful misrepresentation of one of the Columbine shooters as some existential hero, cherry-picking from his diary to avoid the vast quantity of typical violent alt-right-esque racism.) — Kenosha Kid

lol, okay. I'm not checking the reasonableness of characterisations you made but after you decided Carlos is pro-fascist for not critiquing the groups as you'd like, you'll understand if my expectations here are low. If you give a short link to what you're talking about, I'll check it out.

One of his psychotherapy patients was an alcoholic woman who, in part on account of her alcoholism, had been raped five times. JP quite proudly dismisses her testimony as unreliable. He wasn't saying that men didn't pick her up when she was blotto, just suggests that that doesn't constitute rape. — Kenosha Kid

A link or source would be nice, I can't find it. I don't want to comment on this with so little information.

As for the idea of equality between women and men, JP is not on board: — Kenosha Kid

Okay...

No, you shouldn't have a life, you should make do with a hobby, woman. Be thankful for your gilded cage. — Kenosha Kid

What? Listen, I just have no idea what's even being talked about here. Peterson has talked about how important it is to have equality of opportunity, over and over again. I don't know the specific context of this statement but Peterson is not arguing that women should be forced to be housewives.

https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=852

He emphatically states the value of having women in the workforce, unimpeded, being able to do whatever they want to do. You are an incredibly untrustworthy narrator, if he's so bad, give me statements which show what you claimed about him to be true. Show me what convinced you rather than that you're convinced. If this was it, not good enough, this is far from good enough.

He is a Messiah to the sexist, the misogynist, the incel because he exemplifies their beliefs: men are superior, men should be in charge, women should prioritise the needs of men and shut the fuck up. — Kenosha Kid

You are just exhibiting more of the same behaviour I've been criticising.

You did it earlier and had to apologise, claiming ignorance of the topic of the conversation, which I didn't believe. — Kenosha Kid

Nobody forced me to apologise.

You're logically minded but the logic you're using, about reproduction and survival, has led you to a depressing conclusion. Your species doesn't need you to reproduce and survival is near-guaranteed and even then again, your species can survive without you anyway. There's no way around your conclusion, it is correct.

From what you're saying, I think you've misdiagnosed your problem. You are not down because life is meaningless, you are down because the scale of your analysis makes you appear small and insignificant. If you fell in love and said "I'm going to work to make this girl happy" or got competitive with a game and aimed to become really good at it, you can actually make progress, you can actually be important in your own life.

If your purpose in life is just to reproduce for the species or anything like that, you can't be important, you're expendable and the human species doesn't care about you.

To answer your question though, I am convinced life has no objective meaning, the intellect can assert whatever it wants though and if someone is convinced their life has a meaning, you can't really say they're objectively wrong.

What are we saying here, that if I criticise a racist it's really because I'm racist? Ha. Okay. Scraping the bottom of the barrel, there. — Kenosha Kid

No... What I meant was the "effort to dismiss you by giving you this label".

There is a serious difference between the average anti-prejudice/discrimination thinker and you. Peterson is many things, there's a long list of ideas he has, which I do not agree with and there are many issues people can bring up with him, including things I do agree with and I can get it. You call him a sexist transphobe recycling nazi propaganda. Of course, it's not just that, you have used such terms in horrendously inappropriate ways, to people who didn't deserve them. Think you can defend your comments about JP? Obviously, you do but I've listened to the guy enough for what you're saying to be serious red flags, we do not have the same standards for what is sexist and transphobic. We don't have the same standards for what is racist, fascist, or any of that. Thus when we "agree" these things are bad and that we have a personal and collective responsibility to stand up and criticise those things when we see it, we're not actually talking about the same thing.

The "agreement" we make when we say we critique racism together is flawed. What I generally chalk up your behaviour to is a far-left, intersectional ideology that sees and condemns privilege and discrimination in nearly every social interaction. Now you can not be that ideology, I don't care, not far-left, not intersectional, not a feminist, whatever. I'm not condemning you for that, just the way you use terms is bullshit, the way you talk about race is a problem. The way you accused Garth of using "the logic of right-wing nutjob shock jocks" for a fairly apolitical critique of Antifa, that's a better example of the logic you're talking about, no?

Your logic is that of right-wing nutjob shock jocks. — Kenosha Kid

Look at your otherwise non-existent argument, that's it besides some other equally bigoted snarky remarks.

It's sort of weird that you own up to the possibility that your terminology is misguided, but merrily stand by it nonetheless. — Kenosha Kid

I will do my own research on that and decide whether my terminology is incorrect. It's intuitive that feminism doesn't include issues related to men but my experience led me to think that it did, at least when talking about issues to do with gender roles, discrimination, LGBT issues, that 4th wave feminism had taken on broader issues than just those to do with women alone. I've also never heard someone refer to themselves as an "intersectionalist" or really anything besides intersectional feminist when talking about intersectionality.

intersectional feminist adjacent...? I could identify an intersectional feminist or whatever term think is best based on what I've written, by the fact that they self-identify as such or post explicitly related material. Yet I can also gauge a person's ideologies by how they speak on related topics, even without providing me with concrete proof, with some accuracy. I see the same pattern, I associate it with an ideology, that ideology I see as being based on or inspired by intersectional feminism. There's an imprecision in the naming, there always is, even with terms like alt-right or fascism. Call me lazy or inaccurate, if you want, maybe those don't make me look bad enough for your aggressive personality? I don't know, dishonest though? Lol.

You write people off with your labels and maybe you're just projecting? I don't actually know what argument you're talking about. You said you don't like JP, I said JP is criticising something like ideologies based around intersectional feminism, which I see you as a part of. Since then, all I've been doing is defending my actions and criticising yours. What higher stakes are there here? What argument am I making?

Thanks, I'll check it out

No we're not. You're conflating critical theory with intersectional feminism, which is precisely the faulty logic I was talking about. — Kenosha Kid

If I am wrong, that'd just be mislabeling, what logic is at play there? I don't study the terms, I just hear the terms being used, listen to people self-describe as feminists and in that context start to talk about issues regarding gender (more generally) and intersectional feminism (and talking about it more generally). If they speaking from the perspective from more than just feminism, I missed the nuance, nonetheless, my only error would be in a name.

That is precisely what your end of this argument is. Either that or you genuinely don't understand the terms you're employing.

I'm not bothered you think I'm an intersectional feminist btw. It's the dishonesty of how you got there that's of interest. — Kenosha Kid

What's the honest way?

I didn't say you were alt-right, I said you seemed to be making the exact same kind of bullshit argument that I'd previously bemoaned wherein someone "left" can be described as anything you like as long as you consider it also "left". The example with JP being that anyone who is a feminist is automatically a Marxist. The example with you being that anyone who's anti-fascist and anti-racist is automatically an intersectional feminist. — Kenosha Kid

You're such a hypocrite, you are the one poster who is most egregious in this area. You have on numerous occasions called people "right-wing" and accused people of using "right-wing" logic and in literal total absence of any argument and meant as an insult. I did not say anyone who is anti-fascist and anti-racist is automatically an intersectional feminist. I'm anti-fascist and anti-racist, most people are.

You're obviously not going to justify your crap arguments. Up to you whether you want to debase yourself. — Kenosha Kid

The crap argument that you're an intersectional feminist? If I agreed with how you paraphrased my arguments, I'd agree that they're terrible. Or did I not make one? Whichever it is.

Given the context, it seems more like your problem is one of hypocrisy, in which privileged people should go unchallenged when saying that e.g. racism, misogyny, homophobia don't exist, that whatever conspiracy theories they're peddling to explain data to the contrary ought to be respected as facts, and that anyway those facts don't count. — Kenosha Kid

I don't know how much I want to actually address your uncharitable and unflattering characterisations of me and my views. At this stage, I expect it and I don't think I can avoid it. No, you can challenge people on being racist or homophobic, you can challenge them if they say those things don't exist, you can fact-check people, lol.

Incorrect. Intersectional feminism is somewhat more specific, clue's in the name. — Kenosha Kid

We're long past the days where feminism referred solely to fighting for women's rights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROwquxC_Gxc&ab_channel=LafayetteCollege
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWa63FLEYsU&ab_channel=OmegaInstituteforHolisticStudies

Crenshaw discusses as I said, the impact of various kinds of discrimination and privilege, which intersect to create new classes of privilege and discrimination. That a black woman has to deal with both racism and sexism and is thus worse off than a black man who only deals with racism and a white woman who only deals with sexism. That includes homophobia, transphobia, ageism, ableism, classism and many kinds of discrimination besides sexism. In other words, the various social identities one embodies have individual privileges or disadvantages and people experience different levels of privilege and discrimination based on these identities. You're going to have to be more specific if you still have a
disagreement.

I'm sorry that that's what displeases you rather than the racism I object to. Sorry, but not shocked. — Kenosha Kid

You mislabel others, don't expect me to agree with you whenever see racism and in the cases that I agree, I'll criticise them too. I expressed a specific dislike for some of the ideologies surrounding intersectional feminism, I'm not playing a correlation game. All it took for you, is for me to call you hard left and I gotta deal with "you're using the logic of the alt-right" and whatever bs you can use to smear me.

Did you just parrot back the very same thing I just said to you? Call me a fascist, alt-right, racist, I don't care. If anyone on this forum hasn't learned already how little these words mean when you use them, they will soon figure it out. My argument for why you're most likely an intersectional feminist or at a bare minimum, closely ideologically aligned is not unreasonable. And unlike for the alt-right, there are doubtless many proud feminists on this forum and intersectional feminism is not likely something they see as incorrect.

All intersectional feminism says is that people experience different levels of privilege and discrimination based on their various political and social identities. Through the lens of intersectional feminism, we see people as experiencing these different lives based on those identities and sometimes make assumptions about people. Some have taken it to extremes and used the idea of intersectional feminism to develop anger against "straight white men" because they inhabit multiple privileged identities. My problem with it is that we don't want to focus on seeing a person through these most visible identities, using our assumptions about their levels of privilege or discrimination to prejudice against them. The end result seems to be that rather than increasing awareness about discrimination and privilege, it instead leads to just more discrimination and prejudice.

When I call someone an intersectional feminist, in the negative sense, what I am saying is that their hypersensitivity to these identities is causing them to be more prejudicial and discriminatory. That is not necessarily something that they'll agree with but doesn't mean they need to argue against the term. Given the way that you talk on this forum, I think that my guess about your views is correct, whenever you start talking about "straight white men" and whenever your seen overusing the terms "racist", "sexist", "homophobic", "transphobic" or whatever. It shows that your worldview is centralised around discrimination and privilege, if you didn't learn it from self-identified feminists then perhaps you just learned it on the internet, it's quite possible.

This is the evidence that links you to intersectional feminism and unlike "racist" or "fascist" just being called an intersectional feminist, doesn't leave you without grounds to argue that you're in the right. I'm not trying to win arguments by giving people labels. But unlike say, Marxism, the ideology is simple enough that you can just figure it out by listening to people on Twitter, I don't need you to self-identify for what I said to be correct. That said, I will not persist beyond convincing that this description of you is correct if you still adamantly disagree then I'll reconsider.

I've seen you debate people you disagree with politically on this forum, it's not a pleasant sight. I don't belong to any political factions and I am really far off being alt-right. I expect when I talk to you, to be called racist, fascist, alt-right, a right-wing nutter or whatever else because I've seen you describe people as such in the most ridiculous ways. You aren't a piece of shit in my eyes if you admitted to being an intersectional feminist but I am definitely a piece of shit for being alt-right. Your labels to you, mean the total destruction of my credibility, the degradation of my morality, the proof of my low intelligence and an easy dismissal of whatever I might have to say. And you give them out, so easily, here it's because I called you far left. For Garth, it's that he critiqued Antifa, for carlos, he's pro-fascist because he refused to condemn fascist groups to your liking. These events simply don't meet the bar for the words and terms you're using, especially, when they're things you passionately hate.

So, do not compare my calling you an intersectional feminist, to you calling me alt-right, because both the justification and the consequences of the use of these labels are night and day.


Interesting. I wonder if it is the media, internet and social media which have created this environment or just the politicisation of everything? When you put it like that, I probably should have just avoided this thread altogether.

I spent a non-trivial amount of time digging up the exact evidence that you had previously asked for, but here we are at the rhetorical end, kneading the shit about whose hands stink the worst. — VagabondSpectre

The evidence you "dug up" refuted the very thing I was claiming you had spoken untruly about.

Free speech was included in his initial argument/protest, but what made him fervent was, as he explained, the fact that being forced to memorize a slew of new pronouns and to tip-toe around them was too much of a cognitive burden to expect anyone to endure. — VagabondSpectre

It's not strictly the invented pronouns that he was objecting to, it was the compelled use of language to begin with (which he sees as a psychological intrusion). The singular pronouns were just at the center of it all. In two of the three sources I gave Peterson clarifies that he is not averse to using preferred standard pronouns, and in one he states that he normally uses the pronoun that people present as. — VagabondSpectre

Why is this not a contradiction in your eyes? Every bit of evidence you gave just supported my initial assertion but then you act as though I ignored it, what do you want me to do with it?

You're leaving out some context and nuance from what was written. I stated that the clip marked a formal launch of the definitive alt-right, unifying its direction — VagabondSpectre

Is this supposed to mean something specific? A random youtube clip is not a "formal launch" by any reasonable definition of the word formal. The movement was already "launched" and so honestly, what do you want me to do? What deeper nuance am I missing? I don't know to what extent JP's base was recruited into the alt-right but I am not saying this didn't happen. I don't think your narrative is reasonable because your entire "take on' JP is a history of the alt-right.

Yes, he is an unwitting player in that polemic theatre (he is/was in over his head, as I have said), but I never said he led to the alt-right's creation: he was just an arbitrary milestone along the way. — VagabondSpectre

Sorry, when someone says "formal launch" I don't take that to mean "arbitrary milestone".

The alt-right didn't really exist when his first protest went viral; at the time the main driver of the movement was simply a rejection of progressivism gone wild. — VagabondSpectre

You claimed alt-right didn't really exist by September 2016, they only had a formal launch in 2018, are you fucking kidding? What do you think I'm refuting? Then you complain about it. Should I just take everything you say to mean "around about that, somewhat, kind of"?

While Peterson thought he was exporting his clinical talk-therapy ideas to a culture that needed them, his "followers" were actually festering in darkened internet-corners, fuelling and reinforcing their shared delusions. — VagabondSpectre

I've given you every chance to give credibility to your statements. If Peterson's base is 0.01-0.05% alt-right then Peterson's "followers" not actually "festering in darkened internet corners". You show me a video with 40k views and tell me that Peterson, who has over 200million views on youtube and expect me to accept all of the conclusions that follow from this point of yours? All he could do was make money off his "notoriety"? He was "over his head from the start"? This is the story of how your "Long take on JP" "all went down"? You are so full of it, my god.

honestly felt that my long take on Peterson should help to raise the average opinion that people have of Peterson though, so I'm not sure where your objections really come from. — VagabondSpectre

What circles do you occupy where you think your story raises the average opinion of JP? Quite an astounding claim, lmao, what haven't we heard yet? How much worse can it get from what you've written?

I agree with @ssu, Peterson is not famous as a philosopher, he offered a critique of our culture which resonated with people. If you want to understand him then that's what you look at first, after, you look at the self-help stuff he's done, the advice he's given which is not deeply philosophical. After that, his philosophical stuff, that is the last thing he's known for and is honestly, brought up more by detractors than supporters.

Probably our main disagreement comes from the fact you think you're elevating the public perception of JP rather than slandering him horrifically. Who would want to listen to JP after reading your "take", I have no idea, but if you say in your opinion, you're helping to make him look good, what can I say, agree to disagree lol.

You wish to label me alt-right even though I say I despise the alt-right because you think it sounds right. In the very same post that you criticise me for "making up" your connection with intersectional feminism. All you'd have to do is allow me your shitty standards for what I'm saying to be totally fine, what's your reason for not giving me just that?

I have no real interest in arguing about this with you, it is not important to me to give you a label, and I'm not interested in dealing with your many ridiculous labels, the names change nothing.

You have repeatedly stated that you don't know about the relationship between Peterson and the alt-right, but are you at least aware that there is some sort of connection? (It's the answer to why Peterson is associated with the alt-right in the first place, while himself disavowing it). — VagabondSpectre

I know that the alt-right was split on whether Peterson was an ally or not, I know that the media loved to bring up the alt-right connection. I don't know much about any connection besides that.

My post chronicled the rise of the alt right as it intersected Peterson's claim and rise to fame. I thought I explained fairly clearly how once the proto alt-right elements of the SJW crowd (which was large and diverse) evolved toward ethnocentric ideology, before ultimately signalling their abandonment of Peterson. — VagabondSpectre

You claimed that the video you posted marked the birth of the alt-right and I said it was wrong. You posted your comment in a thread about JP, you said it was your long take on JP and then you talked about the alt-right and how JP unwittingly led to its creation. You said he was completely unaware of this alt-right presence, which, he was aware and especially by 2018. You claimed he was making money off of his "notoriety" but then you don't even want to commit to saying that JP's base was largely alt-right or "proto alt-right".

Honestly, most of your first post is debunkable and it's just a matter of whether we bother to go through the whole thing. We're not even halfway through, I don't know though if I can be bothered since his reputation here can't get any worse probably.

As for the rest, this seems to conform to the "if you oppose the alt-right, you must be hard left" argumentation. I'll not bother to dissuade you of it; there are more thoughtful people here to have those conversations with. — Kenosha Kid

I don't like the alt-right, I really despise their ideology and reject it as strongly as you do — Judaka

Umm, are you kidding me? If I can't avoid this comment when I literally condemn the alt-right in the last comment, then it's a lost cause. You really are hopeless.

You don't need to. Simply quote an example of my suspected intersectional feminism so that I and others understand what you're talking about. — Kenosha Kid

I'm sure they can get the idea by what I listed.

It's not strictly the invented pronouns that he was objecting to, it was the compelled use of language to begin with (which he sees as a psychological intrusion). The singular pronouns were just at the center of it all. In two of the three sources I gave Peterson clarifies that he is not averse to using preferred standard pronouns, and in one he states that he normally uses the pronoun that people present as. — VagabondSpectre

I don't know if I've been misunderstood or what but I felt that this was the point I was arguing, I agree with your conclusions.

Free speech was included in his initial argument/protest, but what made him fervent was, as he explained, the fact that being forced to memorize a slew of new pronouns and to tip-toe around them was too much of a cognitive burden to expect anyone to endure. — VagabondSpectre

You just argued that what made him fervent was being forced to memorise new pronouns and this is what I disagreed with. I do agree that his main problem was the use of compelled language.

You do realize that the alt-right is largely a reactionary movement against SJW/intersectional feminist woke-ism right? The right flank of the SJW crowd broke off and veered far right. Being opposed to intersectional feminism myself, I don't think I'm accusing the entire SJW crowd of habouring alt-right ideas. But how can you deny that the alt-right is a reactionary movement against their extreme portrayal of social justice movements? — VagabondSpectre

I realise that's your view but let's return to what I said about proving that JP had a large alt-right basis. If you are not arguing that a large percentage of JP's base is alt-right then why does your "long take on JP" focus almost entirely on the alt-right?

While Peterson thought he was exporting his clinical talk-therapy ideas to a culture that needed them, his "followers" were actually festering in darkened internet-corners, fuelling and reinforcing their shared delusions. They parlayed their starting nest-egg of sexism/racism/transphobia/anti-semitism/xenoiphobia into full blown Nazi ideology. — VagabondSpectre

There is actually a specific moment that in my opinion marked the official beginning of the alt-right (but at the very least it marks the point when Peterson was confronted with the reality of his followers' agendas, — VagabondSpectre

He was completely unaware how thoroughly he was being misunderstood by his followers and detractors alike, and he was therefore unable to navigate the landscape. (Ben Shapiro is an example of a similar early alt-right rally-point, but because he actually understood what was happening, he was able to successfully dissociate himself from it). — VagabondSpectre

If JP had a relatively small and misguided alt-right following which has absolutely nothing to do with him then why is your entire "take on JP" focused on his relationship with them? Why did you give a history of the alt-right and label it as your take on JP? Combined with your other insults towards him, what is supposed to be made of this?

He was abandoned by the now minted "alt-right" overnight. The clip itself was a kind of formative signal that in my opinion formally launched the alt-right as a movement and unified its direction. — VagabondSpectre

As I said, the term alt-right existed before 2016, let alone 2018. It cannot be a reactionary movement to anything Peterson was involved in, at best, the anti-SJW movement pushed certain people towards the alt-right but I don't know anything about that. What I do know is that the alt-right were very much alive before Peterson, mainly because Milo Yianoppolis was accused of being alt-right well before 2018.

https://www.npr.org/2016/08/26/491452721/the-history-of-the-alt-right

This is an article talking about "the history of the alt-right"... in 2016! Can you clarify for me whether you dispute this?

To hear such criticism of this argument format from you of all people... I assume you are just rephrasing the comments about Marxism. As I already indicated, that was unfortunate, because I really have no idea what he was on about. I thought saying that would be enough for you but no, you are just repeating the same thing I already gave you. Peterson did not just say that intersectional feminism is bad because "Marxism" but I do think it's fair to say that he did use Marxism as a boogeyman, however, I'm not going to say he has nothing of value to say just because he did.

That you're far left, I'm certain, that you're an ideologue following intersectional feminism, I mean, it wouldn't be too hard to make a case for it but it's rarely easy to ever know 100%. I don't disagree with intersectional feminism as a piece of truth, what I dislike its appropriation as a political ideology. Hearing you go on about fascism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism and racism, white privilege are red flags and they're near omnipresent with you. You support BLM, you appear to be mostly in agreement with other feminists here. You talk about ethnic histories, you commentate on social issues by breaking things down into social/political groups. I'm pretty much past the point of being unwilling to call you an intersectional feminist even if you won't say it yourself. I'm not calling you that because I think I no longer have to contend with anything you say by doing so but really, give me something else if you want, I won't persist in being wrong just for the sake of it.

I don't like the alt-right, I really despise their ideology and reject it as strongly as you do. I feel similarly about intersectional feminism, at least as an ideological group, ironically, for mostly the same reasons. Militant identity politics, prejudicial, hateful, consumed by race and sex categories and the similarities go on. I will admit, I have no idea what JP is talking about with the post-modern Marxists and I don't know why he didn't just call out intersectional feminism and I don't agree with him on everything. However, his criticisms of the far left, and your ideology, seem spot on to me. It has nothing to do with the alt-right and if they also dislike the far left, that's about the only similarity they share with Peterson, they share it with me too but it means nothing.

I specifically explained how and why JP played a role in the emergence of the alt-right, which schism'd off from the anti-SJW crowd: — VagabondSpectre

It doesn't matter that you "specifically" explained your narrative, I asked for any evidence. If you don't have any, that's fine, I was just asking. Just realise that if you don't have any, your entire narrative is your word and since I disagree with pretty much everything you said, if you can't back up any of it, there's really nothing for me to do except "okay".

Free speech was included in his initial argument/protest, but what made him fervent was, as he explained, the fact that being forced to memorize a slew of new pronouns and to tip-toe around them was too much of a cognitive burden to expect anyone to endure. — VagabondSpectre

He specifically, repeatedly and consistently said the major problem was that the law policed language by forcing people to speak in the mandated way as opposed to forbidding them from speaking in a certain way. The slew of new pronouns was not the main issue he had but what makes you think it was? Do you have any evidence to support your claim? I know I can find a lot to back up mine if I need to.

He wasn't aware enough of what was happening to properly clarify even that. The subject of transexuality/transgender in general has been a singularity of controversy and noise for about a decade, so it's understandable why he could not control that aspect of his own narrative. — VagabondSpectre

I would consider myself anti-SJW though I think what people mean by SJW is generally intersectional feminism. I also actually know enough about the alt-right to say that their ideology is NOT based on anti-SJW ideas. I automatically assume anyone talking about the alt-right has no idea what the alt-right is, nothing personal but it's become a term for "something I don't like" for too many. We're talking about anti-immigration, anti-multiculturalism, white nationalism, white supremacy.

The alt-right is not exactly that new, it clearly parallels neo-nazi ideology. I don't know about the dark web but Reddit and 4chan are commonly cited to be the home of the alt-right and the alt-right had a presence there before 2016. People like Richard Spencer were already talking about the alt-right well before Peterson became famous. I think I'm borderline able to prove that your claims are just impossible to be correct but do you have literally any evidence to support what you're saying?

Are you trying to suggest that a large percentage of JP's base was alt-right? If so, do you have any evidence for this and if not, why are you talking about the alt-right as though it plays a huge role in JP's success?

Peterson merely rejected the use of new/invented pronouns, but the narrative quickly escalated to the idea that he rejected using the pronouns that his transsexual students presented as (he/she, or they upon request). Because of this, Peterson instantly became popular both with the large and amorphous anti-SJW center, but especially popular with any anti-SJW element that was also transphobic (and by extension, the overlaps of transphobia) — VagabondSpectre

He specifically rejected them on the basis of free speech, I can easily find him saying this more than once, I can also find him saying that he would call a transgender person by the pronouns they asked provided it was within reason. But you are making the claim that the reason Peterson became popular with the anti-SJW centre was that the narrative was that he refused to use he/she as asked to do so, so, can you show me anything to verify this?

I think the relation with incel culture comes from an interview with JP where he showed sympathy with the demand (voiced by some incels) to be assigned a sexual partner by the government. As usual with JP, it's hard to say whether he was just doing some psychological analysis of the demand or expressing some kind of endorsement. — Echarmion

I suppose that makes sense.

It's odd that I very rarely see someone defending JPs philosophy in it's substance, I only ever see people claiming that he is viewed unfavourably because of his politics. As a result, I have no idea what people who consider JP an important or convincing philosopher actually believe. — Echarmion

JP really likes focusing on personal responsibility, that seems to me to be the central theme of his philosophy. He believes that by adopting personal responsibility, you give your life meaning. Mostly, his philosophies are very self-help orientated as far as I can tell. Sometimes it seems as though he is suggesting one should focus on personal responsibility to the exclusion of fixing any social issues.

When he's not talking about self-help, he can be extraordinarily difficult to follow. Whether it's the archetypes, religion, morality, politics or the psychoanalysis. I've listened to JP quite a lot but I would have a hard time accurately paraphrasing his views on any of these things, he talks self-help or anti-left or anti-identity politics most of the time. He gives little bits of wisdom but they're not necessarily part of a larger structure.

I would say most of his usefulness as a cultural commentator has been the self-help, anti-left and points which seem to come from his background in psychology. His philosophies outside of the self-help, he has them but I don't think they're well known or even totally understood by even the people who like him.

JP makes his distaste for the extreme left very clear, he talks about the worth of traditional values and he talks about the value of old stories such as those in the bible. He talks about the importance of free speech, the importance of family and community, personal responsibility, the objective nature of morality. Even though JP is almost certainly left-wing (liberal), it's easy to see why the right-wing likes him. I have no idea why you're talking about incels, nor do I know why incels would like him.

For the leftwing, it's obvious why they would dislike JP and there are many things they dislike. Besides being openly ridiculed by him on a regular basis, he attacks intersectional feminism, communism and Marx, the gender pay gap, the laws on transgender language, activism culture, the degree to which the left is nurture orientated and so on. This forum is exceedingly leftwing and actually quite radically leftwing, JP is not going to be viewed favourably here.

Every country in the world would adopt the Nordic model, there would be a proliferation of communes that generally agree to some form of nonviolence, permanent autonomous zones, and micronations, — thewonder

Heh, you really believe that in a world without sensational discourse, your political ideals would come to fruition? Politics is engaged in regardless of whether it's "incapable of becoming as it ideally should" because pragmatically minded people recognise that politics is important. It will never be unimportant.
You are a hopeless optimist I have to say, I will leave you to your dreaming.

I don't take you to be a misinformed or naive person but while what you're describing is unambiguously better than what we have now, what outcome but what we have now, can we expect? How can the average citizen who might spend anywhere from 2 hours to 5 minutes a week thinking about politics be well-informed? The news they watch is biased, their political leaders lie and there's misinformation everywhere. If anyone needed any convincing, hasn't Trump done enough in this regard? People around the US are debating creationism and climate change but can't be misled on complicated political and economic issues?

Any form of equitable conflict resolution requires that all parties are willing to sincerely engage within a debate, which means to be willing to take the perspective of others into consideration. — thewonder

I don't think the politically minded are thinking about conflict resolution, they're thinking about winning power and control and creating a world in the image of their ideals. That doesn't require taking the perspective of others into consideration. It requires you to take power by whatever means are available.
Are you different? What are your goals as a libertarian socialist? When you think about in this way, what everyone is doing may not be pleasant but it makes sense.

What I was saying is that if I believe in capitalism and you believe in socialism, I shouldn't hate you if I hate socialism and you shouldn't hate me if you hate capitalism. Let's have a reasonable discussion instead of trying to up the stakes. That doesn't mean you can't seriously try to advance the cause of socialism politically but I think if you didn't hold it against me that I don't like socialism then that opens the doors for a "calm and rational conversation". That's all I was saying, not that we should avoid talking when it matters.

When I think about how the world has been changed, very rarely do I come to the conclusion that it changed due to "genuine dialogue". The majority are simply not interested in politics or lack the power to make a difference. Better to galvanise like-minded people to be more active than to convert people who disagree with you. People are trying to mediate history but they're trying to do it in the ways that appear most effective rather than most civilised.

You seem to want people to both abandon the effective methods of being politically involved but also to be more politically involved in the less effective ways. If we're talking about making an actual difference, what's a better use of my time?
1. Engage in serious discourse with people who disagree with me
2. Spread misinformation around about my political opponents

I was talking about the average person like me who is just discussing politics for fun or education or out of passion, as is done on this forum. If I wanted to make a real difference in politics, I should go collect donations or something, why would I waste my time trying to convince someone to swap ends on the political spectrum or whatever, that just seems impossible. Sadly, a majority of people doing nothing, are actually no match for a small but politically motivated, organised group, haven't we seen that time and time again?

I was just saying that the vitriol between average citizens could be reduced, for the dedicated and politically motivated, there's no stopping what's going on, they're just doing what works best.

Certain ideologies are blamed with horrible atrocities and disasters of epic proportions. We are hypersensitive to the problems that our societies face and the speed at which things are moving creates a sense of urgency.

Across the range of political matters, there are many strong emotions at play, compromise seems to not be an option. People will agree in principle that there should be open political discussion but on what topic? Abortion, gun control, economic policy, foreign policy, LGBT issues, free speech issues, police brutality, education debt, the war on drugs, treatment of criminals and the list goes on. Many politically motivated people see their views on these issues as utterly non-negotiable. In practice, there is very little that people are willing to be open about when it comes to the hot political issues.

To me, the solution is to realise that whether we talk with openness or hostility towards a random person we meet is not going to have any bearing on the future of politics. If one feels "the left/right is the biggest threat to Western civilization!!" okay but let's not treat anyone who self-identifies with those politics with all of that frustration and anger, I think that's where the problems start. It's not going to solve anything anyway and if there's someone with whom you do not wish to discuss politics, then just don't. It's not always easy to put into practice but I believe that would solve a lot of the problems going on currently.

I don't think we can compare dogs to humans, they're too different. It isn't just neutering that humans would resent but also being given commands, having a leash, being scolded for doing what is in our nature and really most things we do with dogs. Yet, all of those things are done to create a harmonious relationship between owner and dog, they're done in the dog's best interests. A well-trained dog is a happy dog and in most cases where a dog misbehaves, the responsibility of that falls on the owner.

Animal cruelty should not be based on "what humans would like/dislike" but whether the animal is being harmed or neglected.

If you do not neuter the doggo, are you going to punish him for being sexually aggressive? Are you going to deny him access to females and prevent him from reproducing? Is the doggo going to be happier because he wasn't neutered? I think it's really hard to see that he comes out a winner by not being neutered when it just makes both his and your life harder. I dislike morality that goes against the interests of all parties, for me, that's enough to say neutering is a justifiable and responsible option.

Hats off to the elite, they got us good.

Yet the list of potential ulterior motives is much longer than that. You asked "is it altruistic" and the answer is at a minimum "not necessarily". From there, it is a matter of "contentiousness", both the claim that one is being altruistic and the claim that they're not being altruistic can be reasonably believed and reasonably doubted.

Nice pick up.