The problem for Trump supporters is on their end, not mine, and this is objectively true. — RogueAI

What's the reason you are able to be so confident in your knowledge?

At least for the climate change argument, I think very few people argue this as it is. The problem arises though, when climate change is used synonymously with global warming. I remember a statistic that I believe Bill Nye talked about, which stated that 99% or something of climate change experts believe in global warming and climate change. This text is misleading, as climate change can mean more than just global warming. Scientists who believe in global cooling, warming and cooling, or just isn't sure other than that climate changes is also included.

It's fairly easy to find research papers that suggests the possibility of global cooling, although they are met with swift academic opposition from what I've seen. The main argument centered the unreliability of data that considers less than 2 or 3 decades of data. Not too much, but I think global temperatures started to be recorded from about the 1950s. So the most comprehensive study would have at most around 70 years of data. Better but not significant enough to be able to disprove the 2 or 3 decades based research mentioned earlier by itself.

So climate change experts are still plenty busy arguing about it. What makes your knowledge objective?

I am honest, when I tell you I have no interest in making peace with political correctness. Indeed, given its postmodern rejection of values, and a neo marxian preoccupation with power for power's sake, — counterpunch

This is echt Jordan B Peterson. I'm not trying to be a dick but can you make the connection between those ideas? I don't think postmodernism or neo-Marxism (whatever that is) exists in this way. A postmodern rejection of values does not align with the notion that postmodernists often hold critical Marxist views of culture. These are not a rejection of values. Marxism is redolent with values and positions.

"Yes, Donald Trump did call climate change a Chinese hoax"
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/jun/03/hillary-clinton/yes-donald-trump-did-call-climate-change-chinese-h/

This is the kind of crap I'm talking about, not some nuanced discussion about how much humans are to blame. Those kinds of conservatives haven't lost their minds. I'm talking about the ones who think climate change involves a secret cabal of scientists all fudging numbers to get that sweet sweet grant money. And also, Alex Jones, Qanon, #releasethekraken, #clintonbodycount, etc.

"Yes, Donald Trump did call climate change a Chinese hoax" — RogueAI

I thought we were addressing Trump supporters. Whether Trump said that or not our presidents say a lot of things that aren't representational of their voter base. I'm going to assume you're a Biden supporter so I might as well use him as an example.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-voter-fraud-organization-video-gaffe (there's a video)
When Biden explicitly says that there is a large voter fraud organization for both his and Obama's administration, I think it shows some merit to be dubious about how true the words these people speak, especially if we're going to let one like this slide.

The Clinton body count is an interesting one. I haven't looked too deep into it, but I haven't heard the deaths mentioned in the memes yet to be untrue. It's just a list of a bunch of weird ways people died and/or abnormally how the deaths were handled during the Clinton administration. Couple that with a statistic (that I'm not sure is correct) that the Clinton administration had an abnormally high amount of deaths relating to important figures, I can understand how it seems suspicious.

Anyway, I still don't understand where your confidence is coming from about so many different topics. Are you just confident that you are smarter than the "Trump supporters?"

If you think I'm using a "strategy," let me go back to the abortion issue as an example. — FlaccidDoor

I was referencing "people in general", not you in particular. For "people in general" acting as if they were deliberating is a strategy, because most people's thinking (maybe everyone's) is, to a significant extent, shaped by their biases and steered by their emotions. When I hear a comment on Planned Parenthood, I have a positive knee-jerk response. I am biased in favor of the work they do (family planning, for instance, and yes, providing abortions).

As a gay male, abortion and family planning have never been a relevant issue to me, either. I've long had an interest in the Kinsey Institute, the Guttmacher Institute, a batch of gay organizations, AIDS research, and various other loosely connected groups, like PP. I don't know where all of my biases come from, but they are there. Experience, peer influence, work--stuff like that, I suppose. Maybe all the demonstrating by conservative Catholics against Planned Parenthood had something to do with my positive view of them.

At least for me, anyway, when I hear about the issues of the day my knee-jerk response is pretty quick. Not always -- Every now and then I do stop to consider and sometimes change my mind.

This is echt Jordan B Peterson. I'm not trying to be a dick but can you make the connection between those ideas? I don't think postmodernism or neo-Marxism (whatever that is) exists in this way. A postmodern rejection of values does not align with the notion that postmodernists often hold critical Marxist views of culture. These are not a rejection of values. Marxism is redolent with values and positions. — Tom Storm

Thank you very much. Yet somehow I sense that being likened to a brilliant public speaker, successful academic and clinical psychologist - isn't intended as a compliment on your end. Well, I will take it as a compliment nonetheless.

I can make the connection between neo Marxism, post modernism, critical theory and political correctness; yes, they are all related. It would be a work of some number of volumes to describe the development of these philosophies and compare and contrast their ideas. Let us be much more shallow, and simply describe what actually happened.

Communism failed, and Marxists needed another chicken to pluck. The white working class majority refused to cast off their chains and hand absolute power to the Commies! So the Commies cast around and discovered a rich untapped vein of resentment to exploit, in identity politics. It wasn't entirely dissimilar to the resentment of the working classes that Marxist sought to exploit, but still, as you suggest, quite a leap philosophically speaking. They needed a stepping stone, and post modernism provides that stepping stone precisely because it rejects such trivialities as truth and morality as socially constructed.

The aim of political correctness is not peace, harmony or social progress. That's a pretence that post modernism doesn't object to, because - on what possible basis could they object? That it's not true? Truth is relative! Because it's immoral? Morality is relative! Post modernism is the perfect vehicle for neo Marxism because such questions are moot.

Power is, and always has been the aim of Marxism; and so political correctness is a concerted attack against the "white male patriarchy" of Western civilisation; which is to say, the bourgeoise, with the white working class proles suffering the philosophical and political equivalent of collateral damage. That's why the white working class voted for brexit and Trump; because they are despised by the left. And if you don't believe me; read "Despised" by Paul Embery.

My comment wasn't a criticism and thank you for responding as you have. I don't dislike Peterson the ways some do. I have watched a lot of his videos and find some of them very interesting. But he has spawned many neophytes who quote his idea almost verbatim without making actual contact with the concepts in these ideas. Is he a brilliant public speaker? I think his presentation is too strained and anxious to qualify for this - he can be hard to watch because it seems so difficult for him to share his ideas.

I can make the connection between neo Marxism, post modernism, critical theory and political correctness; yes, they are all related. It would be a work of some number of volumes to describe the development of these philosophies and compare and contrast their ideas. Let us be much more shallow, and simply describe what actually happened.

Communism failed, and Marxists needed another chicken to pluck. The white working class majority refused to cast off their chains and hand absolute power to the Commies! So the Commies cast around and discovered a rich untapped vein of resentment to exploit, in identity politics. But that's quite a leap - and they needed a stepping stone. Post modernism provides that stepping stone precisely because it rejects such trivialities as truth and morality as socially constructed.

The aim of political correctness is not peace, harmony or social progress. That's a pretence that post modernism doesn't object to, because - on what possible basis could they object? That it's not true? Truth is relative! Because it's immoral? Morality is relative! Post modernism is the perfect vehicle for neo Marxism because such questions are moot.

Power is, and always has been the aim of Marxism; and so political correctness is a concerted attack against the "white male patriarchy" of Western civilisation, with the white working class majority suffering the philosophical and political equivalent of collateral damage. That's why they voted for brexit and Trump; because they are despised by the left. And if you don't believe me; read "Despised" by Paul Embery. — counterpunch

Yep - that's pretty much the standard critique. I heard it many times before and you'd done a good job keeping it succinct. I would probably not use the term 'Commies' as it cheapens your point and makes it look resentful rather than objective. I also think you need to strengthen the point about Marxist resentment - it feels a bit thin. Why are they resentful?

I can't say if Peterson is right on this. I don't think I see overwhelming evidence for it but I grant you it has a low resolution coherence.

My own view is that many of the people who self-identify as Marxists are not interested in social change or class. Or Marxism. I'm also not sure they want power to any higher degree that most Tories. It's interesting to speculate.

I don't like political correctness either, and I'm curious if you thought I was postmodernistic or neomarxian, and if so, why? — FlaccidDoor

You joined the forum 2 days ago and have made a grand total of 31 posts. It's difficult to get an impression of what you believe just yet; and maybe after you've been here a while, that will change anyway. So, ask me again this time next year and I may have an answer for you.

I'm glad you're not upset by me colouring outside the lines, but my thing is truth. I'm a straight shooter, and I'm not going to pretend I can make peace with political correctness bigots and bullies. If they persist, then I will oppose them. It's not difficult. They tell stupid lies; like the way they make out that the West invented slavery - when we know for a fact it existed since ancient Egypt and beyond, all around the world, until the West put an end to it.

The fact these lefties don't understand that slavery is the inherent to the human condition, and it's only an insistence on freedom that allows for freedom - as they howl against the fairest, most humane and successful civilisations ever built, is fast becoming a prime motivation. I cannot imagine how this narrative plays out around the world, but don't imagine it endears us to others all that much.

Do you think this acts as a catalyst for the polarization of people, and people would be more inclined to talk with each other otherwise? — FlaccidDoor

I do, yes - I think political correctness intends to cause resentment, which it then exploits as evidence for the need for more political correctness, and it's stifling our very human-ness. Talking to other people is now a formal affair; where all the niceties have to be observed lest someone - horror of horrors, might take offence! That could lead to a twitter mobbing, and people out to destroy your life, cost you your job, your home, wife and kids, everything - and they don't care. They are vile. Their dogma is false, and I'm glad you're not one of them - because I can't make my peace with it.

My comment wasn't a criticism and thank you for responding as you have. I don't dislike Peterson the ways some do. I have watched a lot of his videos and find some of them very interesting. But he has spawned many neophytes who quote his idea almost verbatim without making actual contact with the concepts in these ideas. Is he a brilliant public speaker? I think his presentation is too strained and anxious to qualify for this - he can be hard to watch because it seems so difficult for him to share his ideas. — Tom Storm

Thank you for teaching me the word "echt" - which I was unaware means "authentic and typical." I get what you mean about the anxiousness, but I like Peterson's style of public speaking. He reminds me of a Professor I had who taught Rawl's A Theory of Justice - which, rather like Peterson's narrative, is an expansive idea. I loved that class, but a lot of my fellow students hated it - precisely because it's so expansive, and draws upon huge and diverse fields of knowledge. I love how it all relates.

That said, I'm not nearly as religious as Peterson. I'm a philosopher of science, and view religion from the outside as the philosophy and politics of primitive people. I accept that religion is of huge significance to society, but in my philosophy, more as a central coordinating mechanism - that has cemented civilisation over thousands of years. Storehouse of folksy wisdom, sure. But logos?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1.

Does he mean science? Because science (at its best) is true knowledge of Creation; and so must be the word of God deciphered by man. Otherwise, how do the hierarchical social structures of a risk of lobsters apply to humankind - other than by accepting evolution, accepting science in general, and on that basis concluding that religion was invented to allow hunter gatherer tribes to join together in a single social group - by all believing in the same God, and the same moral laws. Instead, I think Peterson is a genuine believer - and maddeningly, makes no effort to reconcile these antithetical narratives, while depending on both religion and science for his arguments!

Are you just confident that you are smarter than the "Trump supporters?"

2016? Probably. 2020? Yes. Now? Without a doubt. I don't see the appeal of the Trump con. I could not get fleeced by him. I think you have to be kind of dumb to fall for his shtick in the first place and really dumb to fall for it twice. My experience with Trump supporters has been: they can't do nuance, they think they're bigger victims than minorities, they believe ridiculous things, and they don't like "demographic change", and when you drill down on that, "demographic change"="country getting browner", and they're a lot more racist than the population at large.

hank you for teaching me the word "echt" — counterpunch

There's that toy, the 'echt-a-sketch" -- police use it to make authentic drawings of suspects.

I'm a philosopher of science, and view religion from the outside as the philosophy and politics of primitive people. — counterpunch

True enough, if the several great religions (Hindu, Buddhist, the 3 Abrahamic faiths) didn't originate with primitives, they were certainly picked up by them. The relatively small group of people who were critical in forming the great religions were probably sophisticated creative types. Just my guess.

As for

Peterson is a genuine believer - and maddeningly, makes no effort to reconcile these antithetical narratives, while depending on both religion and science for his arguments! — counterpunch

I don't think that one can actually reconcile them; one lays them down side by side--separate, not equal, one not advancing the other. I am no longer a believer, but I took my moral core from Christianity. Way too late to renovate that part of the castle. I look to science too. Science though wasn't intended to provide moral or ethical guidance. Guidance doesn't have to come from religion, but it's the handiest source for most people.

It's sort of like the paradox of Christ -- fully man, fully god. You have to have faith to deal with it. Science doesn't care and has nothing to say about it. So, go with science in the 99.999% of situations where faith doesn't help.

There's that toy, the 'echt-a-sketch" -- police use it to make authentic drawings of suspects. — Bitter Crank

That's only because they're not allowed to round up the typical suspects anymore!

True enough, if the several great religions (Hindu, Buddhist, the 3 Abrahamic faiths) didn't originate with primitives, they were certainly picked up by them. The relatively small group of people who were critical in forming the great religions were probably sophisticated creative types. Just my guess. — Bitter Crank

The first artefacts that display a truly human mode of abstract conceptual thought - cave painting, burial of the dead, jewellery, improved tools etc, date back around 50,000 years - so there was a very long time between the occurrence of intellectual intelligence in homo sapiens, and the formation of the first societies. If, as I suspect - religion was necessary to the formation of the first multi-tribal societies - it's older than most people realise; older than the first known civilisations, which only date back around 12-15,000 years. That's not a long time really. Sufficient for the development of writing and the recording of what until then, had been an oral tradition.

I don't think that one can actually reconcile them; one lays them down side by side--separate, not equal, one not advancing the other. I am no longer a believer, but I took my moral core from Christianity. Way too late to renovate that part of the castle. I look to science too. Science though wasn't intended to provide moral or ethical guidance. Guidance doesn't have to come from religion, but it's the handiest source for most people. — Bitter Crank

As usual, your colloquial reasonableness is at odds with my philosophical extremism; but I think religion and science can, and ought to have been reconciled - when Galileo presented Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems, the Church should have embraced and Sainted the man, rather than dragging him into court and threatening him with torture to force him to recant.

"Hurrah" they might have exclaimed - "Galileo has discovered the means to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation" - and the world would be very different today. The human species would not, I imagine, be threatened with extinction had science been granted moral authority as the means to discover truths of Creation. Instead, science was decried as heresy, and reduced in status to a whore to government and industry; used to create nuclear weapons and climate change. Truth is a moral and ethical virtue - that bridges the is/ought divide. Separate, non overlapping magisteria - they ain't.

This is echt Jordan B Peterson. — Tom Storm

Always on the lookout for new words - "echt." One of those words that sounds like it aught to mean something cool, but actually means something normal. It almost has that guttural German sound you make at the back of your throat. My favorite voice sound.

Thanks.

I was referencing "people in general", not you in particular. For "people in general" acting as if they were deliberating is a strategy, because most people's thinking (maybe everyone's) is, to a significant extent, shaped by their biases and steered by their emotions. — Bitter Crank

I feel like I understood what you meant. I am strategically acting in a way to lead this discussion to conclude "people can be civil about these contentious topics" because that is my bias, my goal. My intention was to demonstrate that a position that is not inherently hostile to yours exists in these contentious topics. Yes I am self centered, but that doesn't necessarily mean I am trying to belittle your position or even trying to prove you wrong in the topic, but merely trying to convince you that conversation isn't futile.

My experience with Trump supporters has been: they can't do nuance, they think they're bigger victims than minorities, they believe ridiculous things, and they don't like "demographic change", and when you drill down on that, "demographic change"="country getting browner", and they're a lot more racist than the population at large. — RogueAI

Ok so your basis to call your knowledge "objective" seems to only be that Trump supporters are inherently wrong. I apologize in advance if I'm wrong because we're going a bit rough here, but when you say "The election was not stolen, climate change is not a hoax, Q-anon is a bunch of nonsense, Sandy Hook really happened, Hillary Clinton is not a murderer, etc" the only apparent reason I understand, for you to believe you are right, is that you believe that the other side is just wrong. In other words, you don't actually have the expertise on these topics to be able to draw out the validity of said claims, but rather you're just content to call the other side wrong and convince yourself right.

Again, forgive me if I'm wrong, but you haven't given me much to work off of to conclude differently. However if my assertions have any truth in them, I want to ask: did you learn anything new from what I described about climate change, Joe Biden speaking or the Clinton body count?

If I said I was a Trump supporter will that change how you receive what I said? Will that change your conclusion about Trump supporters? What if I said I was a Joe Biden supporter who actually just wanted to test you? Will that change how you receive what I said? Are you really as objective as you say you are?

My gripe is that you claim to be smarter than 74 million people (the amount of people who voted Trump in 2020) on multiple topics which is a big claim. Those are 74 million people of differing backgrounds and experiences. To me, this seems similar to saying something like, "Those [insert race] is so stupid. They are all the same and wrong about everything."

Bertrand Russel said it best: “In a democracy it is necessary that people should learn to endure having their sentiments outraged”. We should be able to talk about these things but we get caught up in the pathos of it.

But I am optimistic. I see these as the growing pains of an ever-expanding freedom in speech and thought. People now have access to information unlike any time in history, and also many means by which to express their views. If we can come to grips with this, perhaps after a generation or two, we’ll have both the freedom and the thick skin required to handle it.

people can be civil about these contentious topics — FlaccidDoor

They absolutely can be civil. A civil discussion between a Trump lover and a Trump loather probably won't result in changed positions, but if they can at least get to what it is about Trump (or any other politician, political issue, religious question... all sorts of things) that they love or loathe, that would be good.

And if "civil" isn't possible (sometimes it isn't) then one just has to leave it alone--the other
er civil approach.

Yes I am self centered, but that doesn't necessarily mean I am trying to belittle your position or even trying to prove you wrong in the topic, but merely trying to convince you that conversation isn't futile. — FlaccidDoor

Mea culpas are not in order. You've started a good thread and you are tending to it. Looking forward to more good topics from you.

I'm a philosopher of science, and view religion from the outside as the philosophy and politics of primitive people. — counterpunch

I'm actually a big fan of Jordan Peterson as well. I grew up in a rather religious family, and he helped me bridge the gap I held between the world of the sciences and religion. I view them to be one in the same thing now, so what you said confuses me a bit.

What is science if not a religion that follows a bible written by countless scientists and praises a God that is the progression of knowledge?

I guess where I mainly disagree is the part where you say you "view religion from the outside," but I think that's impossible because you cannot not be religious.

Mea culpas is not in order. You've started a good thread and you are tending to it. Looking forward to more good topics from you. — Bitter Crank

Thank you. It's really fun talking to competent thinkers from a wide variety of perspectives. I've only joined 2 days ago and I've had a blast so far.

But I am optimistic. I see these as the growing pains of an ever-expanding freedom in speech and thought. People now have access to information unlike any time in history, and also many means by which to express their views. If we can come to grips with this, perhaps after a generation or two, we’ll have both the freedom and the thick skin required to handle it. — NOS4A2

Do you believe that freedom of speech and thought is increasing? I feel that many, at least in the US would disagree. Perhaps you meant in accordance with our ability to distribute information. Like our freedom of speech increases with more methods of transferring information.

So you believe that the perceived polarization of people in politics is a result of this sudden and drastic increase in our freedom of speech? We are hurt more easily because of the sheer amount of things that can hurt us we are exposed to has increased and we just have to hold out until we are used to the barrage again?

I'm actually a big fan of Jordan Peterson as well. I grew up in a rather religious family, and he helped me bridge the gap I held between the world of the sciences and religion. I view them to be one in the same thing now, so what you said confuses me a bit. What is science if not a religion that follows a bible written by countless scientists and praises a God that is the progression of knowledge? I guess where I mainly disagree is the part where you say you "view religion from the outside," but I think that's impossible because you cannot not be religious. — FlaccidDoor

I would ask instead; what is religion if not the presumption by primitive peoples, of truths about reality, in lieu of actual truths that were only later discovered by science?

Because to my mind, the explanation for the fact we have the knowledge and technology to address climate change, but don't apply it; the explanation for nuclear weapons, burning forests and oceans full of plastic - is that we didn't switch out those presumed truths, when actual truths emerged.

Instead, we made science a heresy; depriving it of the natural authority associated with truth, and rendering it subject to religious, political and economic ideological ends. We developed and applied technology ideologically, without regard to the overall picture of reality science describes.

The overall picture remained ideological - and Peterson suggests, it is impossible to move beyond the frame of that ideological picture. I don't accept that. My understanding is not so culturally defined that I cannot see beyond the frame of a picture painted by ignorant savages! Peterson wants to believe that - I think, because he genuinely believes in God; which is why he needs to clarify his position on the antipathy between religion and science.

On the other hand, family fights over politics are not a new thing.

During the Vietnam War, lots of families had lots of arguments about the premises of the war (domino theory), about the intentions of North Vietnam, about the effects the war was having on the troops, the policies of Presidents Johnson and Nixon, or about patriotism. Ronald Reagan was a lightning rod for arguments.

Family is one of the places where children (and parents) can stake out claims for what they believe, or what they don't believe, as the case may be, then defend the territory. Family argument is the cradle of opinion making, and learning the skills to have and deploy opinions.

Better to learn how to argue than to learn how to shut up.

They absolutely can be civil. A civil discussion between a Trump lover and a Trump loather probably won't result in changed positions, but if they can at least get to what it is about Trump (or any other politician, political issue, religious question... all sorts of things) that they love or loathe, that would be good. — Bitter Crank

One place where I found common ground with Trump supporters was an agreement that, given the fact that almost half of American's doubted the legitimacy of the election, it would make sense to have an even-handed investigation. It's not that I have any doubt that the election was fair and legal, it's that I want to acknowledge the beliefs of those I disagree with. Whatever the cost of an investigation is nothing compared with the possibility of reducing the level of anger.

Family is one of the places where children (and parents) can stake out claims for what they believe, or what they don't believe, as the case may be, then defend the territory. Family argument is the cradle of opinion making, and learning the skills to have and deploy opinions. — Bitter Crank

My family is terrible. We all agree on everything. Our arguments are all about who can be more liberal. I tend to be the most conservative person in the room. I'll say something conciliatory about supporters of President Trump and I get beaten to a figurative pulp.

""The election was not stolen, climate change is not a hoax, Q-anon is a bunch of nonsense, Sandy Hook really happened, Hillary Clinton is not a murderer, etc" the only apparent reason I understand, for you to believe you are right, is that you believe that the other side is just wrong."

If you are coming from the position Q-anon *might* be right, or Sandy Hook *might* have been a false flag operation, the discussion ends here. The moon might be made of green cheese. But it's not, and Q-anon is nonsense.

Do you actually think Q-anon might be right??? Do you actually entertain that as a possibility?

I get beaten to a figurative pulp — T Clark

As well you should, being the most conservative person in the room!:lol:

"More liberal than thou" liberals can be vicious, vituperative vipers.

is that we didn't switch out those presumed truths, when actual truths emerged. — counterpunch

Well the thing is that science does not purport to speak any truths. I'm assuming by "actual truths" you meant scientific theories. I define scientific theories to be explanations for phenomenons based off of observational evidence. These theories, might as well be true in the practical sense, because if you see the same thing happen 1000 times, there's no reason to assume that it will be different the 1001st time either.

However science, is always open to its theories to be disproved and replaced by a new, better fitting one. It facilitates the natural selection of ideas, so the ideas that are left are very reliable. But a reliable theory, is not the equivalent to the "actual truth." It is on the presumption that a larger amount of evidence equals a more reliable conclusion.

I apologize for the lack of engagement. Was a rather busy day on my end. I will have a bit more time to respond in a few hours and tomorrow.

Do you actually think Q-anon might be right? — RogueAI

I don't know even who Q-anon is. I was just saying that you don't seem to have the proper reasons to be able to say that, what you listed previously was objectively true.

Though rather than your reason to believe you are "objectively" true being that Trump supporters has to always be wrong, now changed to be that Q-anon has to always be wrong here.

Calling another side wrong does not move you any closer to the truth.

I don't know even who Q-anon is.

Are you an American?

Yes?