There is a difference between being a white male, and putting that status forward in terms of blood, virility, fatherland, and all that. — Bitter Crank

I agree, I did not say that being a white male and appealing to other white males is the same as being a Nazi.

Barack Obama's single greatest liability was that he was a successful black man, something that conservatives found terminally irksome. The conservatives probably would have liked him better if he used poor grammar, mumbled, and had a couple of drug convictions and a robbery or two on his record. That he was a lawyer, college professor, crisp English speaker, cool calm and collected, crime record free, and more cultured than them was just... intolerable. — Bitter Crank

Personally, I think that the way BO tried to implement his healthcare reform in the US was wrong, and also his approach to the economy, including the bailouts, were very wrong. In many regards, he was a career politician, who did what the establishment wanted of him, and now he opened a foundation (to receive some more money that is still owed to him) and things will go on from there. He's living the basic, traditional life of someone successful.

The white supremacists, on the other hand, explicitly put forward their race, gender, heterosexuality, uncircumcised dick, and so forth, against blacks, gays, Jews, and whoever is on their list of unwanted. They don't attempt to appeal to a broad spectrum of society -- anything but. — Bitter Crank

Well yeah, but that's a different thing from what I was describing. I was just making a point that the left does not want to acknowledge that there are reasonable ways to appeal to voters who have the same identity as you (for example white male), without being a white supremacist, neo-nazi, etc.

For fuck's sake, America has still never had a woman president — Maw

Right, America has also still never had a Chinese president. Should that worry us?

In a society where the equality of all before the law exists, it is not relevant that the President is black or white. As Deng Xiaoping said, who cares if the cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice? People should be President based on competency, not on sex, gender, etc. Some people on the left today really have a distorted view of things. It's really sick to think about putting someone to do a job, when you know that that person is less competent than the other options available, just because that person comes from a minority group. If a President does a poor job, it affects everyone - competency is really important.

As for what happened historically, that's irrelevant today. We're no longer a society which practices slavery, or where women don't have rights, so we don't have to pretend to still be one.

We must now act according to current times, when things aren't as they used to be 200 years ago.

Are you incapable of seeing the asymmetry of power, both historical and modern, of women and blacks between white males in America? — Maw

No, I don't like double standards. If the black lesbian woman is allowed to rightfully connect with and appeal to people like her, so should the white, straight man be allowed to appeal to people like him. That's real equality.

Yes, Hilary Clinton is a woman, and Barack Obama is a black American, and both leveraged their identities to connect and inspire a group of voters. Never did they claim that those groups could "do anything" once they were elected. Never did they use divisively racial or sexist language when speaking to different population segments. It is not racist or sexist to connect with people of your own skin color or gender. It does dissolve our "social unity". To claim otherwise is a mixture of stupidity and ignorance. — Maw

So if a white man leverages his identity to connect with and inspire people of his own skin color and gender in order to get voted into office, can you imagine what the left would say? Oh, Neo-nazi! White Supremacist! Patriarchy! Oh dear...

Paul Fussell wrote a book a few decades back, Class: A Guide Through the American Status System, that explains all this. There are certain features of the would-be old-money upper class look. even though one is, like yourself. a nouvelle arrivee. For instance, the wood floor should be dark wood -- as if it had been walked on for at least 200 years. There are products available to achieve the desired darkness.

One should buy real oriental rugs of course, made by suffering children under horrible working conditions, but they need to be old oriental rugs, slightly threadbare. After all, they were bought when Wilson was president. And so on. — Bitter Crank

I never understood why some people think this way, to me it just seems some uncalled for snob-ism. If it looks nice, it looks nice, who really cares whether the carpet is "authentic" or not? Like what difference does it make, if it looks the same? I may be an uncultured barbarian, but this seems self-evident to me.

No. Then God would be in his heaven where he belongs and all would be right with the world, sort of. — Bitter Crank

>:O - well, I personally think having Trump as President is infinitely better than having Hillary as President. The difference is between having visible problems, and having invisible problems. The latter is worse.

Oh dear... So now we know what your mansion will look like.

The fake decoration wasn't hideous, certainly, but it was the wrong fake decoration for the space. A modern hotel conference room isn't entitled to (possible, but probably not) marble statuary (too white, bright for one thing), books that look leather bound (either fake or bought by the ton by interior decoration supply companies) and fako 18th-19th century woodwork. There were too many other signals that this was merely a conference room in a hotel -- the chairs, lighting, walls, paint, etc. — Bitter Crank

I guess this would go in another thread, but why is it off-putting if it's fake? The point of the decoration is to look nice, not to be original, no? I guess it would need to match with the rest of the hotel, but then I don't know how that looks.

It's just that the eponymous developer of the brand happens to be POTUS, and as such is disturbing in ever so many ways. — Bitter Crank

So, what about that makes it disturbing? If he wasn't POTUS, would that not be disturbing?

I had the same distraction factor of seeing the TRUMP brand. — Bitter Crank

Oh dear, what's wrong with the TRUMP brand now?

Plus the fake decor behind the lecture. — Bitter Crank

I thought the setting looked quite nice and fancy, though I don't know the place.

Since when do newborn babies lack the right to life? — Maw

It was an irony, since behind "reproductive rights" hides oppression of the weak and downtrodden, who cannot speak (literarily all aborted babies). Seems like you're not very good with figures of speech.

And is that really all you have to say? — Maw

For the most part, since you didn't address the substance of the video. You tell me identity politics is not recent. Peterson didn't claim it is. Neither did I for that matter. Then you proceed to go on a tirade that is besides the point and illustrates that you haven't watched even half of the video.

1) identity politics also a right-wing strategy too, from the Southern Strategy to Breitbart and Fox News, and in fact, many forms of left-wing identity movements are formed because of right-wing opposition — Maw

This is just finger-pointing, you don't explain how Breitbart, Fox, etc. are identity politics.

2) "The Left" is not in uniformed agreement on the importance or focus on identity politics. Notable democratic politicians, for example, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, etc. clearly don't consider politics to be reducible to identity. — Maw

The point isn't whether politics is reducible to identity or not. The point is that some of them, like Hillary Clinton, campaigned on the fact that she's a woman, Obama campaigned on the fact that he's black, etc. What the hell is "breaking the glass ceiling" huh? Isn't that effectively telling a segment of the population "you will be able to do whatsoever you want if I'm President, so vote for me", thus trying to bank on greed, self-interest and divisiveness to get elected?

Effectively, they did run sexist and racist campaigns - "vote for me because I'm like you, a woman" - "vote for me because I'm like you, a black man, and I will be the first black President - after me, you too will be able to be President". Those are racist and sexist grounds for running a campaign - a campaign which is essentially divisive. And sure, there is identity politics on the right side too, though not as prominent. But there are right-wing groups which do seek to get the votes of white evangelicals, etc. Ideally, a campaign should be conciliatory, not bringing up more and more divisions. In this regard, Trump also failed, though part of his failure is due to the cognitive dissonance of the left who just refuse to come to terms with reality.

Also, you seem to think that Peterson (or myself) is your regular conservative who doesn't care about environmental protection, free healthcare, and other such goods. You are deluded mate.

From the list you named, Sanders is probably less focused on identity politics than the rest, though he is also with the 1% vs 99% that he speaks of literarily every single time he opens his mouth.

Circular and laughably naive, no wonder you readily subscribe to Peterson's vapid "self-help" philosophy. — Maw

Yeah, only that I was saying all this for quite a few years already, seems like you haven't been reading what I was saying on PF. As for Peterson's self-help - well, some of it I found helpful. You should try it, it might bring good results in your life. If it doesn't, then just don't use it.

Rest of the comments will be addressed later.

Read the discourse on the method part 4 by René Descartes. He explains how he proved the existance of a greater being, whom he calls God. — René Descartes

Yes, I actually think the ontological argument for God's existence is the most powerful argument, but it must be properly understood. Kant's famous critique of the ontological argument is that "being is not a property", so I do not add anything to a notion by saying that it exists. Kant gives the notion of 100 thalers, and says that nothing is added to the notion if we say it exists. Existence adds no difference between the concept and its object.

So this strikes at one of the core issues of philosophy, which is the relation between Thought and Being. From the very beginning, philosophy aimed to close the gap between thought and being - that's what thought, in its endeavour of doing philosophy, aims to do - it aims to coincide with being. But one must notice here that it is precisely this gap between thought and being that is the mark of finitude. So this gap may hold for finite objects like 100 thalers. The thought of 100 thalers isn't the same as the being of 100 thalers, because the object is finite. But obviously, this gap between the thought and the object cannot hold for an infinite being, which is the subject of the ontological argument. As Hegel illustrated, the infinite being must be both Subject and Substance, both thought and object.

but the fact that in Marxism the bourgeois are against the proletariat (and thus one the oppressor & the other oppressed) is not mere language, it's intended to make an assertion about the actual state of affairs. — MindForged

Sure, the point is that it's a lie. There is no state of affairs as Marxism describes it.

The claim in Marxism is not that "all faults and sufferings in the world" are the fault of the bourgeois, but rather that a number of social and economic ills are largely caused and maintained by the bourgeois because it maintains their style of life, and is even necessary for them to live as they do. — MindForged

Yes, the Marxists claim that the bourgeoisie maintain a certain social and economic structure because they are the ones who have power, and since it benefits them, they use their power in that direction. But as Peterson explains in the video, it's not power, but competency, that allows them to be the privileged social class. There is a hierarchy, hierarchies cannot be eliminated, and that hierarchy is based on competency. The bourgeois are at the top because they have shown themselves to be the most competent at taking care of their society. In a way, excluding at the moment corruption, the way to get rich is by selling a lot of goods to a lot of people - which means adding value to the world, giving people what they want.

I'm on my phone and about to fall asleep. First thing to think about is: Life is suffering, Peterson should just suck it up for being oppressed by cultural Marxists. Fucking pussy.

Kind of obvious. Good night. — Benkei

He does man, but you know, you get bored, must do something, no? >:O

Goodnight ;)

Will be faster if you just point out what you disagree with, that's how a discussion usually goes.

I'll watch it after you've demonstrated how Marx' theories on social and economic structures and how these should change to benefit all people fit into identity politics and the idea of white privilege. It's prima facie incoherent from what I've read of Marx. — Benkei

I chose the title based on the title of the video, which is the subject of this thread.

With regards to Marx's theories, Peterson takes the underlying fault to be the fact that he pits the proletariat against the bourgeois, making one into the oppressed and the other into the oppressor. This sort of language is precisely what allows all faults and sufferings of the world to be cast at the feet of the oppressors - they are responsible, that's why the world is bad. Whereas Peterson's point is that life is suffering, and we are not responsible for that - it's just the nature of life.

So Marxism ends up in totalitarianism because it thinks there is a way to end the suffering present in the world, and throws all its resources towards achieving this ideal state. However, this is actually impossible to achieve, and trying to achieve it merely leads to worse suffering.

Useful way to (mis)construe your opponents, maybe I should start doing likewise. — MindForged

Ironical that Peterson said you should take your opponents at their strongest and not strawman in the video.

reproductive rights for women — Maw

What about securing the right to life of newborn babies, has that been taken care of by identity politics? Or only issues of those groups who have a loud mouth are taken care of?

Life is tough for most people except for those with lots of money. — René Descartes

I disagree. Life is tough for everyone, even for the billionaires. Money may get you the best doctors and the best services, but apart from that, you still get old, you still get sick, your wife still leaves you for the guy with more muscles than you, your friends still betray you (perhaps moreso than before), people are more likely to steal from you, you still suffer defeat and humiliation, etc.

Money doesn't protect one from the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune ;)

non-stop orgy — Bitter Crank

Mmmm, from the British I learned that this is called a shagathon. You know, like a marathon, but for shagging, not for running >:O (though I guess that just like you can run a marathon, you can also run a shagathon!)

What do you think BC, do the ladies like a man who has good shagathon stamina?

Everyone is a nihilist at least once in their life. It's a natural side effect of human reason. I underwent a period of nihilism, but I managed to overcome it without becoming atheist and rather remaining Christian. — René Descartes

Why were you a nihilist, and how did you overcome it?

The issue I'm trying to underline above relates to honesty and openness. The point being that I don't think speech which causes conflict is honest speech, even when dealing with an injustice. To me, honesty isn't merely a matter of intent, or of self-expression. It's also a matter of communicating in such a way to make yourself and your intentions understood to the other. For example, if you say the truth to someone, and due to your speech, you make them feel threatened, then you have failed to be honest (supposing now that you didn't intend to make them feel threatened, you just intended to communicate the truth to them).

So speaking uncomfortable truths to others can be done honestly, or dishonestly. I think that often speaking an uncomfortable truth honestly takes skill. It's not easy to do. Peterson is right that speaking the truth honestly is the most important thing - but it is difficult. In any regards, speaking the truth honestly should be the least dangerous alternative there is (though it may still be very dangerous).

What is the upshot of this situation? — Bitter Crank

Sounds like I'd be quite comfortable with this, granted the practice of meditation :P

I mentioned the principle of sufficient reason. That would be one such axiom. The law of non-contradiction would be another. — Thorongil

The LNC cannot be denied without affirming it, but I'm not sure you can say the same about the PSR. There are many who have (coherently) denied the PSR, at least in its applicability beyond our language.

However, even the LNC can be denied in a way. Nobody can deny that our phenomenal experience obeys it or at the very least that we need it in order to communicate. But it can be denied that the LNC applies to reality. For example, someone can appeal to quantum mechanics and say that science reveals that, contrary to what our phenomenal experience at the macro-scale tells us, at the quantum scale reality does not behave according to the LNC. Our language and conceptual thought is simply inadequate in describing this kind of reality.

Speaking uncomfortable critical things to power, true of false, is dangerous. — unenlightened

I agree. But why is it that you decided to speak openly about it to them, instead of taking a more round-about way of approaching it? Is it just because you wanted to choose being honest at all costs and expressing what you think regardless of consequences? I mean, changing the system requires the right degree of give-and-take, or compromise. You can't do business (and by business, I don't mean just financial business, but any kind of business) with someone if they don't perceive that you're a trustworthy person who is willing to listen to them and compromise on things. If you don't give that impression, then you are seen as dangerous, and people don't want to have anything to deal with you (simply because they feel they can't predict what you'll do next), unless there are other circumstances that help you, like a lot of money in the game.

For example, someone like Steve Jobs can afford to even start swearing and cursing one of his suppliers because there's a lot of money in the game. Even if Steve shows himself to be a dangerous guy who speaks his mind, that guy will take it (to a certain degree of course), because the rewards are worth it. But someone like me, who is still a small entrepreneur, can't do that. Sometimes I know what must be done, but instead of telling someone "do this", I must say "what is your opinion, should we do this?" - it's a way of conveying to the other person that I will choose not to be threatening or dangerous in our relationship.

This is bollocks too. If we decide you are mendacious ignorant foreigner who doesn't deserve to be here and cannot be trusted to do a job, you get no work and get sent back to from where you came. Caring or not caring is irrelevant. — unenlightened

Sure, that will be your loss. Why do I care? It's not me losing, it's you losing my valuable talent and hard work.

Notice that the syllogisms under Inductive and Abductive are invalid? — Banno

Dayuuuuuum >:O >:O >:O

Elon Musk is one example of a noble individual — Posty McPostface

>:O The funny thing about Musk is that he is literarily a textbook example of a Stoic, but it seems he hasn't even heard about them.

Ah. I haven't been there so long, I forgot how it works. I'll try again — unenlightened

I remember reading this post like 1-2 years ago or something, and I re-read it. To be entirely honest, your writing on many issues is interesting and original, but that doesn't mean it's right.

For example, the views on race that you express with regards to counselling - it's not that they are false, but they are limiting, and only apply in certain circumstances, not across the board. I've never cared when people discriminated against me for example. Eastern Europeans are often thought to be thieves by you British - so what? It would be a shame if Agustino cares what the British think, when the British don't care what Agustino thinks, wouldn't it?

This is why Peterson is right. The individual always holds the real power. It is not society, or the group that wields power, it is the individual. And when the individual surrenders this internal power onto society, that is the only time when he or she can be truly disgraced.

With regards to discrimination from me (a white man) towards other races - I never even think about it. I've had black, white, yellow - all kinds of skin color friends. Even some of my girlfriends have been of other races. All human beings are the same, why does it matter the race? I can get along with blacks, with whites, with any skin color out there.

So what if people (or my society) is racist and mocks me for spending time with people of different skin colors (for example)? Doesn't matter what others say. I can care less. Indeed, it would be a shame if I stooped to the level of caring what X or Y thinks of me.

Sure, but those earnings are reversed in third-world countries usually, where good IT developers earn more than lawyers on average (again, not more than top lawyers). And still, lawyers are given higher social status. These are social phenomena - the peasant from the countryside in third world countries has no clue what someone in IT does - but they do know what a lawyer does. It's an older profession and has accrued more respect over time.

Anyway, I'm sure social status does play a role but I still maintain that money is the key driver and holds more importance than status in the American dream. — René Descartes

For some, money is indeed more important.

Don't you think it is the fact that in our current society lawyers make more money than people in IT that they have a higher social status? — René Descartes

No, they don't make more money in all societies (at least not on average - top lawyers do generally make more than top people in IT pretty much everywhere).

What is your definition of social status and can you give an example as well please. — René Descartes

How well you're seen by others. For example, the profession of lawyer is typically well-regarded - so even if a lawyer makes less money than someone working in IT, they will have higher status - people will give them more importance.

Expected to slide down to 5k USD according to Michael Kovacocy — Benkei

I've said 6-7K sometime before Christmas, but purely on a technical, non-fundamental kind of analysis. My guess would be these guys also use a technical analysis, I doubt they're looking into fundamentals for something as volatile as BTC.

The problem with it though, is that the exchanges suck so much that it's virtually untradable.

Society is based on money and everyone's goal is to acquire as much as possible so they would go for the higher paid option. — René Descartes

Money is important, but it's not the only consideration. Social status is, arguably, more important than money for most.

1) Newton codified gravity 332 years ago
2) He asserted that the "law" was universal and maintained by the action of God
3) He was wrong on many issues as we now know due to Einstein.
4) Whatever Newton OR Einstein say nature remains unchanged, but the LAWS which are human constructs DO in fact change.
So to get back to the thread point, you were wrong. — charleton

No, I wasn't wrong. We still use Newton's equations, and not Einstein's when we build homes. It works.

As for saying that nature remains unchanged - how do you know that? :s I don't address metaphysics here, as I made it clear to Rich, but a priori it is equally possible (if not more possible) that nature changes.

Maybe I should've said 300-400 years though, I suppose we have enough measurements from around Newton's time. — Agustino

That's why I said the above. But whether it's 200, 300 or 400 - same thing really, I mean Trump used to say that people were doing business with sticks and stones hundreds of millions of years ago - so why you gettin' on my case for just 100-200 years?! >:O

200 years??? LOL — charleton

Yeah, because, you know, we haven't been measuring the acceleration of gravity in any thorough manner before that (for example). Maybe I should've said 300-400 years though, I suppose we have enough measurements from around Newton's time.

Fuck, do you want to go another round or two[? That the future will be like or unlike the past, that it will be something or nothing, cannot be derived from experience. — unenlightened

Ok, let me switch gears then. What the future will be cannot be derived from experience - but can a rational way to behave (and we're always behaving for the future) be derived from experience?

But to claim, after having been dragged kicking and screaming over several pages to it, that "we would expect" the result is - extravagant. — unenlightened

Well, what can I say, I am an extravagant man >:O

Though isn't it clear that we need some first-principles, which cannot be derived via argumentation, but must be derived rather from experience?

one might say that it is part of what we mean by 'the future', that it will follow in an orderly fashion from the present and past, and if it doesn't, then we would have to call it a new world, or an afterlife, or something. — unenlightened

Do you think that this is what Kant says or is this unrelated?

Like take an American with a high-school education - do you imagine they'll go to sweeping the streets? :s Suppose that the pay to be - say - a store clerk is $1000/month, and the pay to sweep the streets is $1500/month - what will they choose? The store clerk, of course! I would do the same myself.

Those jobs are far more necessary in society than being a CEO of something like Facebook. Yet they seem to be paid the least in all society for doing some of the most difficult jobs. — René Descartes

Last I heard, Zuckerberg's salary as Facebook's CEO was $1 :P

So you're saying that wealth that you produce should be given to someone else who has not worked at all for that wealth so that they can 'administrate it'. — René Descartes

No, I just pointed out that being a good wealth-producer isn't the same as being a good wealth manager. Bill Gates doesn't administrate his own wealth for example - he pays others to do it, others who are more knowledgeable than he is at doing that.

What do nomads do, without laws in the wilderness. — René Descartes

They don't have much wealth at all, so no administration is needed.

But the entire American dream states if you work hard enough all your life will achieve success and wealth, even if you start out with nothing you will eventually achieve wealth so by your logic, the American dream is a lie. — René Descartes

Sure, I don't care about the "American dream" or any such notions. I care about the reality. Hard work is not enough to be rich. I generally dislike people who always complain about how hard they work anyway.

Also, someone has to dig those trenches, someone has to clean the streets, someone has to go into the mines: when will they receive a fair share of the wealth they work for. Imagine if there was no one to do those jobs, will the rich feel stupid then for not paying them adequately. — René Descartes

This is a social phenomenon. People don't want to do those jobs anymore in developed countries. It's not about the money, for many of those jobs there is a labor shortage, even if some of them are even well-paid. The reason for that is that these people don't have a good social standing, they may be affected by poorer health, less time for family, etc. So if you think that increasing the pay of those jobs to stupendous amounts will solve the problem, you should think again.

That's why all the immigrants end up getting those jobs - no one else wants them!

Because that is the only way to think of this problem. There is only a limited amount of wealth, not everyone can be a billionaire even though the majority may want to and may work harder than those who are billionaires, so I'd be interested to know in which other ways you might think of this problem that does not involve chance. — René Descartes

Do you consider that one becomes a billionaire by chance?

They are the ones who produce that wealth, so I think more than anyone they would know how to use the wealth they produced through work and labour. — René Descartes

This depends. They do not produce that wealth alone but when put in certain systems that are not of their own making. Without those systems, they don't produce wealth, that's why they need the systems - otherwise they'd be working on their own.

There is also the problem that the one who produces the wealth may not know how to administrate it. It doesn't follow all by itself from the fact that one produces wealth, that thereby one knows how to administrate it and use it wisely. All that results from the former, is that the respective person is good at producing wealth.

I know many people who have worked hard all their lives and not even reached such amounts that you talk about. — René Descartes

Working hard is not sufficient. I can work hard in digging ditches all my life - I can break my back, and ruin my health doing it, but I probably won't get rich.

I don't see why you follow the principle that hard work necessarily means big results. If you work stupidly - like trying to cut a tree with a hammer - then you may work super hard and achieve almost nothing. And no, I don't think we should reward people for working stupidly.