One message I can appreciate is when he speaks to young men and tells them that it is the taking of responsibility that gives meaning to adult life. This is an incredibly powerful message and runs counter to corporate and other nonsensical memes concerning the pursuit of self- (fill in the blank) as the end-all and be-all that predominate our culture. — synthesis

Why is that relevant just to men, out of interest?

Do you consider yourself more responsible for people/problems in your own community as opposed to ones half way around the world? Do you owe more to your family or friends than complete strangers? — BitconnectCarlos

I'm a global villager. I guess I base it first and foremost on the cause, maybe secondarily on proximity as a pragmatism. So yeah I'm planning on helping out elderly in my area, but not because I care about them more, rather under the assumption that other people in other areas will help there. From an organisation standpoint, that's what makes sense. But in terms of helping the poor, it makes sense to go to where the poorest are. And I wouldn't hold the loneliness of old people in my area above the poverty of children far away on the basis of proximity.

But what you're getting at is would I help kin first, friends second, neighbours third, etc. I'd say yes and no. Obviously I could help my family a bit: there's poor people with mental health issues in it, but I don't imagine I could do much long-term good. If you mean, would I help my father move a wardrobe even though there's starving Africans, obviously yes. But generally, no, I don't think that priority scales with proximity.

It’s a joke, idiot. Keep your panties dry. — NOS4A2

Does it not worry you that it was indistinguishable from your nominally serious comments?

Damn. 4000 died of covid on Biden’s first day. That’s more than 911. — NOS4A2

When did they contract Covid? Who was President then?

Ridiculous comment.

There no political and cultural unity, nor unity concerning social policy etc.. — ChatteringMonkey

Human rights, esp. worker rights, is a big part. But, yes, they don't tell member states how to govern or legislate, within the bounds necessitated by membership.

I'd say the most important difference is that the EU lacks foreign policy and military competences, and an executive power that can represent the EU in these matters... as such it doesn't really have agency as a state would have vis a vis the rest of the world. — ChatteringMonkey

It has foreign policy on trade (it is, after all, a trade union first and foremost). The notion of an EU armed forces keeps getting floated. That would, I agree, be a big step toward state status.

Peterson is talking to young revolutionaries — BitconnectCarlos

I stopped here, for the record. Whatever this paragraph is, it is propaganda, not discussion.

Of course there's a responsibility to others. But how does it work, exactly? Are you responsible for a child in sub-saharan African? How about responsibility for the homeless in your town or region? Or are you more responsible for, say, a family member or a friend than a distant stranger? There's circles of responsibility, do you agree? Or are we equally responsible for everyone? — BitconnectCarlos

After a breakup of a long-term relationship, I was feeling sorry for myself and decided I needed to get out of my own head for a few months, so I went and volunteered in Tanzania. Pretty selfish reasons, you might say, and you'd be right. What seems less selfish is the sentiment expressed around the table of volunteers at our first meeting: "I want to make a difference." This is the romantic idea of volunteering: *I* can do something.

That motivation would lead to disillusionment. It isn't generally possible to do enough as one person to help so many who have so little. This is why communities like the volunteer community actually work: you help the community to help those who need it. You are a wheel in a bigger machine, nothing more, and while that dashes any romantic notions you might have, it works. It doesn't matter who you help, because you're part of a greater community that helps far more people than you ever could.

So the first part of my answer is that you don't need to do things alone, and that alleviates the need to choose to some extent.

The second part is that when you have systematic inequalities, oppression, injustice, etc. you have an opportunity to help not by focusing on individuals but by focusing on systems. This is why people seek reforms.

Closer to home, there are some great platforms to get involved with, such as putting people in touch with lonely elderly people (something my partner and I are looking into for after lockdown), or you can raise money for charity (I run marathons for Women's Aid which provides shelter and safety for women and their children fleeing domestic violence situations). There's tons to do. It doesn't matter so much what it is, so long as it helps. You're just a cog.

Or you can do nothing, that's valid too. Just focus on doing others no harm.

[Wheel in a cog? FFS KK!]

But then again, perhaps that's the whole point, and JP and right-wingers know that they are misrepresenting the other side, but they do so deliberately, as a debate tactic, a la Die Kunst, immer Recht zu behalten. — baker

I'd go further and say it is partly because this is his MO that they find him so attractive.

The aforementioned point about self-mastery can viewed as an attack or Marxism or not. I don't really care. It can be viewed on its own too, and I think it's good advice regardless of whether it's "really" an attack on Marxism or not. — BitconnectCarlos

As I said earlier, my issue with JP is less the targets of his criticism and more his argumentation. I agree, one can have self-mastery and not accuse those who wish to be sensitive to others of being commies. To my mind, being a self for one's self, a self for others, and an agent of change for others are part of the ongoing project of life. The idea that we have to focus on one is wrong. One can agree with self-improvement and still disagree with JP.

(To counter my accusation of intersectional feminism -- although I have no real problem with it as a project -- an analogy might be made with the feminism argument that society should not change to benefit a single man while a single woman is oppressed. There, I can't be a feminist and be a man who criticises feminism, and I know this because feminists keep telling me! :rofl: )

You have to admit there's a lot of extremely non-self reflective people out there pushing for vast social changes when they're essentially incapable of doing basic life tasks or establishing an inkling of self-mastery — BitconnectCarlos

I'm a huge proponent of personal responsibility. However that includes a responsibility toward others and, as I said above, one can help others without having finished the unending project of helping oneself.

This isn't me calling them poor; regardless of money some people are just complete messes and if they ever were in a position to make that change I think it would be insane to trust them to do a good job at it when everything else in their life is a complete mess. I don't care how well they understand Marx or various left-wing thinkers. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. It seems like you're suggesting that Marxists are fuck-ups who can't sort themselves out so want to change the world for their benefit instead. I am sure there's people just like that but it's probably not generally true. I don't think Marxism would be very attractive to such people. Capitalism with a strong welfare system would be more beneficial.

Just try to be mindful of what you're implying when you write. — BitconnectCarlos

I am. I'm not responsible for disingenuous and unjustifiable interpretations of bad faith contributors. I am typically explicit and happy to clarify any point if you're interested, which you're not.

A lot of his points aren't actually about Marxism. — BitconnectCarlos

A lot of them are. At least, they are to him. Your example is not exempt. I would agree that a lot of the things he criticises as being covert Marxism are nothing to do with Marxism.

So you're saying he's not reaching out to them from an intellectual/philosophical angle to make them less racist or misogynistic, so you are effectively calling him a racist or indifferent to racism. — BitconnectCarlos

Do you need clarity on what I meant, or is the point to wilfully misrepresent? I suspect the latter.

No, in my opinion JP rationalised his appeal to the alt-right post hoc. That is what I said. That is what I meant. No dishonest layer of interpretation needed.

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. — Judaka

Given that your entire appraisal is based not on any affirmation of my ideals but on what I stand against -- racism, fascism, etc. -- seems pretty on-the-nose to me.

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. — Judaka

So you're making it up. Obviously I knew that, since I haven't posted on intersectional feminism once on this site. Just wanted you to be explicit that your proof that I have posted such comments is your assertion that I have done so.

When communists accuse others of a coup, they are preparing one — Banjo

:rofl:

For further consideration, recall how Trump told his supporters not to vote by post, then was stumped by most postal votes being for Biden because his supporters did exactly what he said in the middle of a pandemic, while Biden's were more likely to vote safely.

There's too many masks in that crowd for it to be a pro-Trump crowd, although main point taken: everyone seems to push their luck during major celebrations... Thanksgiving, Christmas, the end of Trump's presidency (which might yet become a national holiday). BLM protests also. But cramming yourselves like sardines into a large space? That's just bizarre.

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%. — Judaka

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.

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.

Thanks for clarifying, anyway.

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 — Judaka

Actually he did (e.g. "Radical feminism [is] Marxism in another guide"), but if you agree with the gist, there's probably not much point arguing the details.

Do you realize that it sounds like you live in a stupid fantasy world of common low-IQ delusions? — VagabondSpectre

Tbf if he could he wouldn't be in a stupid fantasy world of common low-IQ delusions, or Qanon as I believe it is known.

Do you really think that if Biden really had as many voters as he said he did, all of them, even protected by thousands of soldiers, would refuse to go to the ceremony of inauguration of their idol? — Banjo

Yes. The anti-maskers, anti-vaxxers and Covid conspiracy theorists are all on Trump's side. Idiocy attracts idiocy. Compare how jammed together the few people at Trump's farewell were despite ample space with how spaced apart the attendees at the inauguration were. That's called social distancing. That's what reasonable people have been doing for almost a year.

Ok so JBP's goal is actually to make everybody more racist and sexist, ok got it. — BitconnectCarlos

Again, that isn't in anything I said.

Earlier, I wrote:

JP is probably responsible for a lot of the extremely low-quality political raving you see on here — Kenosha Kid

Since then, one JP disciple has interpreted my statement that Peterson recycles anti-Semitic conspiracy theories as an accusation that he's anti-Semitic, and now you're interpreting my mention of the fact that JP himself said he is reaching out to white supremacists and misogynists as him trying to make people racist and misogynist.

It's very difficult for me not to say, 'I told you so.' Oh look, I said it.

If you want to see why JP is looked down on, it's because he argues like this and appeals to people who argue like this.

Regardless, we have an excellent team of moderators to ostracise members who are contra the spirit of the community for us. If you don't want to challenge his propaganda, fair enough. But actively trying to turn the community against him is bad form imo, and infantile. I very much doubt that nos has flown under the radar: moderators are counted among those who routinely call him on his crap. Accept their evaluation: nos is part of the community and has as much right to be called a raving lunatic as anyone else.

A philosophy forum ought not to be an echo chamber. It can be a shooting range, though.

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. — Judaka

The reasons why JP appeals to the alt-right are a little separable from JP's principles themselves. My fault with him is far less about his conclusions than his arguments. Nonetheless those arguments are identikit right-wing ones: 1) criticise X by criticising Y and associating X with Y, then proceed on the basis that X has been criticised; 2) insist that X is the public face of a more sinister Y conspiracy that has its tendrils everywhere.

If you think that pointing to anything you don't like and hissing "Marxism" is smart, he's the guy for you.

I don't think you know what my ideology is. Although you have good reason to know what it is not, which might be good enough for you. And Peterson. And the alt-right.

How is the EU devolved? — baker

Every state has its own local laws. (I appreciate it hasn't devolved, i.e. transitioned from a more centralised government to a more localised one, indeed that was part of my point.)

Foucault suggests to engage in Parresia a type of courageous talk, which forms part of techniques of self-discipline offered by the Stoics and Romans as a way to resist the order of things and live a more rewarding life, independent of institutional coercion. I just wanted to reach out to everyone with similar interests and see if we can spark a small discussion. — Giorgi

There's a lot of buzz about courageous talk now, e.g. #MeToo. It's been effective to an extent, and within positions of power.

I recall Colin Firth publicly berating himself for knowing about Weinstein and not speaking out against it. And that for the most part seems to have been the case: the people who spoke out were the victims. Why did so few who knew support them? Probably related to the fact that the would-be victims who resisted still don't have careers. No one's talking about the new Mira Sorvino movie, and she's an Oscar winner.

There is, or was, a campaign to get men to protest their own friends' misogynistic behaviour. I doubt that's fared much better, but I hope it had some impact. My feeling is that the majority of people prize validation from their peers more than they prize their own authenticity.

The danger as I see it falls in distinguishing that authenticity from the trappings of one's culture, which might be good, bad, or arbitrary. Foucault champions asserting one's truth at the risk of being a pariah within one's peer group. But the benefit of having a peer group is that it might temper bad apples. We only have to look west and back a few years to see how bad actors can emerge from the underground once bad actions are legitimised.

Appeals to one's sovereignty are always at odds with, or at least perpendicular to, our moral duties, which concern our own behaviour within a social group. The right balance of challenging the behaviours of others and challenging one's own beliefs seems like the win-win to me.

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? — Judaka

JP's specific appeal to the alt-right has been boasted by none other than JP himself, who has rationalised that appeal as him actively reaching out to that audience in particular in an effort to make them less racist, misogynistic, etc. Utter bullshit, of course.

The EU and the UK bear comparison. Both are highly devolved, albeit from completely different directions. Both have parliaments that vote on legislation that the whole must abide by, as well as parliaments within each member state. Given that the EU's trajectory is integration while the UK's is disintegration, one could argue that the EU is much better at being a country than the UK is.

Seems kind of anti-parallel with Dostoevsky's line:

[M]an is tormented by no greater anxiety than to find someone quickly to whom he can hand over that gift of freedom with which the ill-fated creatures is born.

It also reminds me of meme theory.

But it could be more literal: A cage is for removing the freedom of a bird; a bird is not for caging. The cage must find its bird, not vice versa. Seems obvious, but back then it was probably a common mindset that the purpose of a bird is to be held in a cage (in the same way the purpose of a cat is to mouse, the purpose of an ox is to plough, etc.).

Evil man :rofl:

Tbf though this is the Not Trump candidate being not Trump.

An interesting new trend where everything that one doesn't like is branded as "anti-Semitic". — Tzeentch

Do you always just pick a word and guess the argument rather than reading? I never said he was anti-Semitic.

I've seen a few of Jordan Peterson's videos. He speaks very well, and I agree with much of what he says. — counterpunch

What a fucking surprise.

-------------------------------------------------

I think everyone else got this covered. He wrote a self-help book but a bunch of alt-right losers bought instead a manifesto.

JP is probably responsible for a lot of the extremely low-quality political raving you see on here, e.g. the recently exiled Rafaela Leon.

The right like him because of a substitution error that they all seems to make now: criticising the left by criticising Marxism, then characterising the left well beyond Marxism. And they like him because his real target is not Marxists but decency. JP is famous because of his shortcomings as a professor of psychology, which led to a meltdown in front of his students which was seen instead as a call-to-arns by every misogynist, homophobe and transphobe in the world.

As a result, anyone who isn't a misogynist, homophobe or transphobe is now a Marxist whether that label makes any sense or not.

The other attraction to right-wing nutjobs is that JP presents conspiracy theory as philosophy. He takes old anti-Semitic myths and presents them anew with communists as the secret evil who are controlling everything: the media, academia, education, our minds. He has the special glasses, has awoken from the slumber that this underground power has kept everyone else in, and has an explanation for why you find yourself disagreeing with so much of the egalitarianism that you see: it's not that you're a backward asshole; it's not even political correctness gone mad... It's commies! And we know how evil commies are.

If logical fallacy and anti-Semitic conspiracy theory fucked and had a kid, it would be Jordan Peterson.

Folks, it is time to shun nos4. If you agree, no more replies to nos4 anywhere. — tim wood

I think you were at my school.

You know how since Trump took office people have a newfound affection for Dubya..? I think counterpunch has done the same for Nos.

By that same token, though, isn't trying Donald Trump for treason kind of excessive? He's been made enough of an example of already. — thewonder

How did turning a blind eye to high crimes come from your consideration of open discussion?

What crimes? — NOS4A2

Obstruction of justice, bribery, conspiracy to defraud the United States, campaign finance violations, financial fraud, tax evasion, money laundering...

EDIT: Oh, and the one he's most proud of... sexual assault.

An open discussion, but no so open its brain falls out. Remembering the lessons of the past is also useful, so that we don't make the same mistakes. Open discussion between conservative and progressive theories is fine, and we generally have that and it's synthesis. But having to reargue against the same bad ideology as if it's brand new is not so useful. For instance, taking recent events as an example, having to reargue for democracy against a fascist dictatorship seems a bit crazy, but these are crazy times.

I tend to be just as careful as I can possibly be but not to a ridiculous extent, and as far as I know I have not had the virus and I was having to travel on busses to work daily in the first couple of months of the virus. — Jack Cummins

Me too, although I now get taxis and I've become an alcoholic as long as it's in hand gel form ;)

The only thing which I would query is 'an ethics' because that sounds a bit too fixed, as if it may be prescriptive rather than dialogue about ethical issues. — Jack Cummins

I think a safe space to discuss solutions and implications is a great idea, but a poor endgame.

I think that it is far too early to say that the scientific response to the pandemic has been good. — Jack Cummins

Four vaccines in under a year is pretty good. Even if you choose not to believe in scientific testing, having four candidates for hope is a pretty swell response if you ask me.

So, this does raise questions about whether the transmission is really human to human, or more. — Jack Cummins

It's been well understood that the virus can pass via surfaces of objects for a long time, which is why everyone has to disinfect everything all the time.

Certainly, let us hope that the disaster has woken us up to the whole threat of disasters. But, of course it is not the first. There have been earthquakes, terrorist attacks, the Grenfell tower fire in London, and many more. Unfortunately, it seems that thinking often occurs in the aftermath. — Jack Cummins

Yes, Grenfell is a good example where a proactive approach had already been taken in terms of laws, but our current attitude to corporations is that legality is an opt-in/pay-out deal. Similar situation in America with Du Pont. Knowingly killing tens of thousands of people is technically illegal, but they're a big business so, as long as they pay out, they can carry on.

This has a direct impact on the climate crisis, since many of the largest businesses are in the business of causing it. Historically, financial disincentives don't seem to be an obstacle when there's a greater financial incentive to accelerate toward disaster. A better commercial ethic needs to be part of the conversation.

Yeah, turns out White House toilets work just fine.

What will the hysterical masses do without the winds of Trump directing their moral weathervane? — NOS4A2

Continue not invading the Capitol, I imagine.

Fake news, the crowed was HUGE. No ones ever seen a farewell crowd so massive. — praxis

It was a beautiful thing.

When the ex-president's farewell attracts more audiences than the inauguration of his successor, it is impossible to fail to realize that the result of the election is somewhat doubtful. — Banjo

Trump logic: my mid-pandemic rallies were bigger, so we must have won the election. There were very few people at his farewell speech btw: mostly media, his family and the military he requested.

Of course, when we are in difficult circumstances we draw upon all philosophies, but I am wondering about how may we construct a philosophy for disasters? — Jack Cummins

A philosophy of disasters would be an ethics. You'll need some assumptions about responsibility toward both existing humans and future generations. (It isn't trivial to deduce that we have any responsibility toward the propagation of the species.)

There's also two different kinds of disaster to consider. The first is something like the current pandemic which has the capacity to kill a lot of people but can be handled in a reactive way: these are non-existential threats. The best way to ensure one can react is to invest in science and to ensure that people value facts. The biggest failure to cope with the Covid pandemic has been a disregard for truth, especially at the top. The scientific response has been extremely good: multiple vaccines in a short period of time, with solid (albeit often disregarded) advice on how to stay safe and minimise the impact of the virus in the meantime.

Then there are existential threats, such as that predicted by climate scientists, which require a proactive approach. I'm more pessimistic about these. As I said, it isn't trivial to show that we owe future generations anything at all, and that kind of short-termism is likely to push us toward a catastrophe. Ideally it would be the role of government to make the case to follow the scientific advice, but as per the reactive example above, that can't be relied upon. People are more likely to vote for the party that promises to do nothing than the one that promises specific pre-emptive action.

Ideally, disaster preparation would be removed as this kind of political football. If we agree we cannot do nothing, and we agree we cannot rely on people to vote to do something, a long-term, perhaps meritocratically-elected governmental branch free from political interference might do the job. However that which one giveth one could taketh away, so I suspect the people would promptly vote to dismantle such a branch.

It's almost perfect, isn't it. Except that the Joker was an (evil) genius with supernatural logistic skills.

If Christopher Nolan had made a Batman film in which, despite being obviously unhinged, vile and unfit for office, the Joker got a huge number of supporters and became President so he could pardon and release all of the villains of the DCU, I'd probably have thought, "Well, that was far fetched."