Fnord
Member
What philosophy, pray tell, is not flawed?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
[Channel4] Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism
- Thread starter PSlayer
- Start date
What philosophy, pray tell, is not flawed?
Nintendo Switch
Banned
She is not left. Stop conflating actual liberals, those who believe in empathy, open communications, freedom of expression and nuance with authoritarians like her and some of the mods at resetera and oldgaf that neglected all of the things I mentioned just now and instead engage in thought policing, labeling and black and white thinking.
Actual liberals do need to do a better job of not letting authoritarians hijack their name and run it through the mud.
In the interview Jordan Peterson was the only one that sounded like a liberal because he was the one that was advocating for empathy, open communications, freedom of expression, nuance and fighting against black and white thinking.
Liberals need to switch back to when they embraced freedom of expression and freedom of thought. Those values are fundamental to being a liberal.
Last edited:
Cybrwzrd
Banned
Taking a victory lap is fun and all, but you actually have to run the race first for it to count.
Also dismissing a large swath of people as being stupid, just because they hold different opinions than you do is a really bad look.
MajinSweet4
Member
Whenever I've seen him talk about various subjects, he usually has data/polls with sources to back up certain claims. What anecdotes are you talking about exactly? And how can you have "anecdotal assumptions" about something like free speech? He values free speech highly, that's his position. Is he supposed to have sources for that?
Okay, well which is it? He "seems" to? So you're not even sure? And "some form"? So not really either of them?
So apparently without really knowing if he's pushing a philosophy, or even what one, it's still fair game to assume and condemn.
To be frank, nothing you've said in in this post really says anything. It's all rhetoric and generalizations with nothing specific or anything of substance. Like, it doesn't even leave anything for anyone to debate because everything is so vague and withdrawn.
Relativ9
Member
dragonfart28
doesn't appear to want to actually engage in any debate, he's just leaving short "gotcha" messages without ever addressing any of the points made by either me or
strange headache
He's yet to demonstrate how Jordan Peterson is a libertarian, And he's yet to demonstrate how Utilitarianism doesn't suffer from the flaws outlined by me and Strange Headache (props to him for doing a much better job at it though).
Super Mario
Banned
Finally got around to watching the video. It really makes me wonder how the future of debate will continue to evolve. It does not leave me hopeful.
Here, you have a Canadian clinical psychologist, cultural critic, and professor of psychology. Forget what you know about him. Purely looking at a matter of credentials, it's pretty common that using someone like this as a reference, would be "science" or at least "evidence-based facts."
Yet, we can so easily discredit these statements because he may show a level of bias, which of course, we know no one ever has in any argument. A bias from our side of the spectrum, is quite welcomed though. Somehow, we can take this man's "evidence-based facts" and discredit them because of feelings, because that was all this argument boiled down to. This man broke down the psychology differences between men and women. This is a tough subject to quantify for most people, even though the data is out there. Instead of challenging the psychology, the argument is where? To smear and twist words?
This wasn't even close to a fair match-up. I'll give you that. However, it isn't too far off the mark from the typical left-wing agenda debate.
Here, you have a Canadian clinical psychologist, cultural critic, and professor of psychology. Forget what you know about him. Purely looking at a matter of credentials, it's pretty common that using someone like this as a reference, would be "science" or at least "evidence-based facts."
Yet, we can so easily discredit these statements because he may show a level of bias, which of course, we know no one ever has in any argument. A bias from our side of the spectrum, is quite welcomed though. Somehow, we can take this man's "evidence-based facts" and discredit them because of feelings, because that was all this argument boiled down to. This man broke down the psychology differences between men and women. This is a tough subject to quantify for most people, even though the data is out there. Instead of challenging the psychology, the argument is where? To smear and twist words?
This wasn't even close to a fair match-up. I'll give you that. However, it isn't too far off the mark from the typical left-wing agenda debate.
Nintendo Switch
Banned
1 That’s just blatantly false Visit any right wing bubble and almost daily they posted a picture comparing Obama or Michelle to monkeys and posted blatantly racist captions
2 How can you possibly deny that is a blatant racism involved with comparing a black person with a monkey? Switch Obama with a white president and there are no racist undertones with comparing them with a monkey, that’s just basic common sense.
Last edited:
Mahadev
Member
This is where me and Peterson part ways. Marx is fucking rolling in his grave because of terms like "cultural Marxism", Marx never argued for authoritarianism or equality of outcome both prime characteristics of the people Peterson debates against. The most extreme that he argued for about a future automated society he imagined was "from each according to his ability to each according to his need". But even this was about his distant future, what he actually wanted for now is everyone to paid accordingly to their labor.
The other problem with Peterson is that he tends to combine the two lefts together, authoritarian left and libertarian left might as well be the same to him when he describes "the left's crimes" and talks about Stalin. I really want to talk to him and say, dude, do you even know that the libertarian and center left always despised the authoritarian left and vice versa? Do you know how many thousands upon thousands from the libertarian left Stalin murdered? Why are you even putting us together in the same category, is it our fault capitalism and its corporate media, a system you support, is using these geniuses to distract and divide? What he doesn't understand or wants to understand is that his real problem is authoritarianism, not the "left".
Last edited:
Kadayi
Banned
Pretty sure no ones believes Marx is the originator of this, so I'm unsure why he'd be rolling in his grave (or why anyone should care for that matter). The phrase has been around since the 70s I'm not sure why it's suddenly a bone of contention.
I don't disagree that he's rallying against authoritarianism and with that framing when he talks about the left I implicitly understand that he's referring to the authoritarianism left rather than the liberal left.
Last edited:
Mahadev
Member
Because it's a ridiculous term, it's like leftists saying "cultural capitalism" about supporting inequality between genders and races. They're sloppily pushing economic terms into social issues.
I think he needs to be more specific about it because every time I've watched a lecture or interview of his he keeps generalizing like there's no clear distinction.
Last edited:
Kadayi
Banned
As a shorthand for the push for equality of outcome, I find Cultural Marxsim works pretty well. To truly minimise inequality you need to look at and rectify the root causes with long-term solutions, not try and engineer immediate outcomes to present a facade that all is good and proper in the world. All that does is benefit the politicians, certainly not the people involved. Who wants a job with the spectre hanging over their head that they only got it so the HR dept can tick some diversity box? No one needs that uncertainty of worth haunting them and eating away at their self confidence for the whole of their career. Social investment needs to come at ground level in schooling, education and mentoring.
Why? It's already in the frame of being a discussion about authoritarianism. Why the need to have to spell it out endlessly? That seems like some unnecessary level of pedantry tbh.
Last edited:
Mahadev
Member
But, like I said, Marx never argued for equality of outcome, even in his most extreme suggestions about the distant future what he wrote was still far from equality of outcome. Only the most deluded leftists actually say out loud and support equality of outcome and they are usually authoritarians. The point is that using Marx's name for something that doesn't have anything to do with him even when you're sloppily "translating" economic issues to social ones is ignorant and counterproductive because it alienates leftists that would otherwise join your cause against authoritarians.
It's not pedantic when he keeps repeating leftists this and leftists that. At the very least he needs at some point extensively talk about the distinction because as it stands he's making a mistake imo.
Lupingosei
Banned
Jesus never argued for all the crimes that were committed in his name. Still, we did call it the crusades or talk about church and think nowadays how terribly Christianity was. Marx was not arguing for but his followers did. Cultural Marxism was an idea of the left and is a problem we have to face now. The war against fandom comes from a perspective from cultural Marxism. Fandom for example always had this barrier of knowledge and in a lot of subsections skill. Fandom is so not very open and you neither get instant recognition or acceptance. This is however against everything the new left is teaching, that is also why this war against fandom exists and why especially young man, which are the main audience for Peterson now are involved. Petersons rise is also a huge part of this "gamers are dead / fans are dead / gamers are so entitled, gamers are [insert x]" movement.
As a left historian, I can assure you, the left always had a problem distinguishing itself from the authority movements. Left parties all over Europe still could not separate itself from the Sovjet Union or Mao even after all those crimes they committed were already well known. From a purely historical perspective, he is not wrong. During the last time, the left had a similar movement in the 60's people were carrying around Mao's book or even the Soviet flag, even while they knew about all the murders. The Soviet flag, for example, is still an accepted symbol while the regime behind it was responsible for the deaths of about 50-60 Million people. So, of course, he can attack this problem and he is not wrong.
Kadayi
Banned
Marxism is political shorthand for forced equality. It has very little to do with Marx teachings at this juncture versus visions of totalitarian communism as realised by the Soviets and Mao. As a catch-all people get it conceptually. I don't know why this is such a hard thing do you to grasp. As an avenue to attack/try and discredit Peterson, it seems a pretty peculiar one to try and go down.
Again why? The frame is already set in terms of which left he's speaking about, so why the fuss? Mayhap you're only able to conceive of left and right with nothing in between, but here in Europe we see politics as a near complete circle with both authoritarian left and right at the ends and the more liberal parts of each towards the middle.
Last edited:
Bryank75
Banned
People believe his evidence backed theories and well argued points, he is well open to criticism and being challenged unlike many leftist figures... who wrap themselves in cotton wool. He has significant clout because of his intelligence and decorum.
Psychology is a serious field of study... and if you are trying to undermine that, be very careful as you undermine all the illnesses and conditions they diagnose and treat.
strange headache
Banned
Peterson rose to fame because he drew attention to a specific problem, that's being discussed by an increasing number of professors like Jonathan Haidt, Camille Paglia and Bret Weinstein. That's why speculating about his political affiliation is largely pointless:
Recent happenings and the sad state of affairs on most American/Canadian universities certainly lend credence to Peterson's claim that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. What happened to Evergreen and Lindsay Shepherd are no isolated incidents, as more and more students and professors will become worried about the dogmatic climate on college campuses. Even if Peterson would be wrong, at least he's open for reasonable debate, which cannot be said for his opponents many of whom are acting in a very hysteric and openly hostile manner.
- No matter where he stands, it would only be construed as an ad hominem attack by people seeking to discredit his person in order to circumvent the discussion.
- Whether his arguments have any merit or not, has nothing to do with Peterson's persona. Arguments stand on their own, no matter who expresses them.
Recent happenings and the sad state of affairs on most American/Canadian universities certainly lend credence to Peterson's claim that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. What happened to Evergreen and Lindsay Shepherd are no isolated incidents, as more and more students and professors will become worried about the dogmatic climate on college campuses. Even if Peterson would be wrong, at least he's open for reasonable debate, which cannot be said for his opponents many of whom are acting in a very hysteric and openly hostile manner.
Lupingosei
Banned
Even people like Glenn Loury and John McWhorter. There are a lot of people on the left who do not like a lot of these new campus movements.
I sure hope that reasonable left-leaning people will be more prominent again in the future. Whatever happens on campuses today is destroying the left / progressive movement from inside. The disconnect to more centered people and to the reality of the lives of all citizens, be it in the US, Germany or Denmark, will drive people to the right. The right's easy message is especially sweet if the other side is basically telling men that they are lust-driven monsters, hating everybody else and telling women (indirectly) that they are not truly empowered. Women who do not agree with hyper-progressive stances get as easily branded as traitors as are men who want to focus on consensual solutions long-term.
The absolute majority of people, men and females, want to be empowered and want a chance in life. We know within our hearts that life is not a zero-sum game unless we make it so. Some forces try to make us attack each other instead of going after the benefactors of power asymetry. The true irony is that each time a hyper-progressive spearheads another movement, they cement the thing they are supposedly going after. But in the end, even that seems to be about power. Not in the equality sense, but in the "shifting it to me" sense. And people feel that this will not end well.
Super Mario
Banned
Peterson rose to fame because he accomplished the near impossible: articulation in challenging the far-left.
Most attempts end in personal smear attacks. In this example, he picked a brilliant forum. An uneducated liberal whiner who could not debate his years of study in the field.
Nintendo Switch
Banned
I know the below graph is well known...
But it’s very true. Traditional liberals fall into what the chart labels Libertarian Left. The people that call themselves Libertarians fall into the Libertarian Right quadrant. The GOP fall into the Authoritarian Right and unfortunately, the Authoritarian Left (the people engaging in thought policing, doxxing and attacking freedom of speech on campuses) have switched to hijacking the Liberal moniker though they do not share their principles or values.
Liberals need to kick them out and reclaim the label before their name gets even more dragged through the mud by the authoritarian Left that do not value freedom of expression, the right to privacy or freedom of thought. Empathy towards even those we disagree with is the only path towards changing minds and making progress.
But it’s very true. Traditional liberals fall into what the chart labels Libertarian Left. The people that call themselves Libertarians fall into the Libertarian Right quadrant. The GOP fall into the Authoritarian Right and unfortunately, the Authoritarian Left (the people engaging in thought policing, doxxing and attacking freedom of speech on campuses) have switched to hijacking the Liberal moniker though they do not share their principles or values.
Liberals need to kick them out and reclaim the label before their name gets even more dragged through the mud by the authoritarian Left that do not value freedom of expression, the right to privacy or freedom of thought. Empathy towards even those we disagree with is the only path towards changing minds and making progress.
Last edited:
perryfarrell
Member
This dude is a complete hack.
It's very unfortunate that, outside of academia, this dude is seen as typical example of a quality academic. He's really not.
One of the many things that gives him away is the certainty with which he announces his broadly-painted conclusions. Whenever legitimate academics or scientists announce a thesis, it's usually very tentative, with lots of qualifications. He does the opposite. His view or approach works everywhere, zero qualms or hesitation.
Another thing that gives him away is how easily he talks outside his domain of expertise. If his specialization is 'clinical psychology', when how come he throws around terms like 'cultural marxism' and 'postmodernism' in complete disregard with their actual meanings. He has no clue what they even mean (and the same thing applies to 'feminism').
It's very unfortunate that, outside of academia, this dude is seen as typical example of a quality academic. He's really not.
One of the many things that gives him away is the certainty with which he announces his broadly-painted conclusions. Whenever legitimate academics or scientists announce a thesis, it's usually very tentative, with lots of qualifications. He does the opposite. His view or approach works everywhere, zero qualms or hesitation.
Another thing that gives him away is how easily he talks outside his domain of expertise. If his specialization is 'clinical psychology', when how come he throws around terms like 'cultural marxism' and 'postmodernism' in complete disregard with their actual meanings. He has no clue what they even mean (and the same thing applies to 'feminism').
RokkanStoned
Member
You're describing pretty much a large part of academia outside of publication. More so, from the lectures from him I've seen, he usually presents qualifications in regards to his findings.
My problem with your post is that it could've been a very interesting counter-perspective, but it's just statements without any examples. To me that makes it just seems like a veiled attempt at dismissal, without the weight to back it up. It does at least not bring a fruitful discussion.
It would help if you were clear on the way he uses it and how they should be used, taking into account differences in colloquial and academic semantics.
I would especially be interested in your conclusion that he has no clue what feminism means, because defining ideological terms is something that academia usually have great trouble agreeing on. Language is living and active moments are in constant flux.
Cybrwzrd
Banned
This is a textbook fallacious argument. It opens in the first sentence with both an ad homenim and argument by dismissal (that he's a "hack"). The second paragraph is a jumble of arguement from authority (i.e. poster is apparently an academic and thus is an authority, no need to provide evidence), a red herring gets tossed on the field (comparing lectures and interviews to research papers); and a topping of prestigious jargon to reaffirm the stance as an authority. In the third paragraph, the gloves come off, with an appeal to false authority mixed with rhetorical question (he can't have any expertise of these issues, as he is just a clinical psychologist).
What did this even add to the discussion?
Last edited:
perryfarrell
Member
Good piece: http://chroni.cl/2F5cXlg
Cybrwzrd
Banned
Clickbait article title: "What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?"
Actual article: Peterson isn't really that dangerous. Presents a favorable (while giving fair criticism) or balanced view of him. Nothing at all like the suppositions you argued for in a prior comment.
Mahadev
Member
Yet when we talk about invasions or war we don't call it "cultural Christism" or something stupid like that. I have no problem making fun various disasters the left is responsible for even if it was only because of the authoritarian left, the equivalent of your crusade example would be saying don't put me in a gulag in a discussion with a leftist. But talking about cultural Marxism like it's a legitimate term is ridiculous. It's not even a jab or joke, it's a term an intellectual uses seriously.
As a left historian you should have known that many, many socialists gave their lives fighting against the authoritarian left assholes. You should have known that in most countries the libertarian left traditionally tends to hate the guts of the authoritarians except in countries like the US where the left is virtually non-existent since it's growth has been completely stunted because of overwhelming corporate propaganda and other dirty tricks the ruling class has been using (like for example convincing the public that neoliberals like Hillary Clinton and DNC's leadership are left). In these countries the left is so disorganized, confused and stripped of its history and experiences that they don't even know that they're following authoritarian ideology and tactics.
And fyi the term tankies was mostly being used by the left for supporters of Mao and Stalin in the West and definitely wasn't an endearing one.
Last edited:
GotrekNoFelix
Neo Member
You seem quite willing to announce your broadly-painted conclusion with great certainty.
Puts the reader in an awkward position. Do they believe you, anonymous internet poster as you do what you criticise Peterson for or do we disregard you fairly weak and empty criticism and trust the successful Psychologist and Academic Peterson at least over you in this circumstance?
Very tricky.
RokkanStoned
Member
Sorry, but what would "cultural christism" entail that wouldn't be covered by terms "cultural crusades" or "western imperialism"?
Do you have a problem with the term "cultural marxism"? It's a word that's on its own pretty understandable in it following a marxist history interpretation, but with focus on culture instead of materialism. The problem is of course, that there's no uniformity regarding the term, leading to using it without regard for the semantic meaning they're trying to convey. Thus it ends up being used as some insult of "something-something-leftist". We could easily spend 50 pages discussing the word "democracy" though, so it's all about communication and agreeing about the meaning it's supposed to convey.
That's true in some cases, yes, but I would say overall pretty moderate left wing people or even libertarian left who supported said regimes. I can most certainly vouch for it in Norway in terms of the interwar period. It's not surprising, because their perspective was one of revolutionary spirit, seeking to spread a revolutionary wave. So it took some time for that spirit to temper, especially as their main enemy was the "capitalists" and conservative elites as they viewed it. It wasn't until the Kråkerøy speech in 1948 that the left took a great stand against communism. Most leftists of significance nowadays in Norway would fall more along the lines of the authoritarian, rather than the libertarian as well.
That said, I can understand feeling a bit peeved in regards to attacks on "leftism". One thing is disagreement in regards to the collectivism of the left, another thing is to try to use insults and never really engaging the ideas that they're discussing and instead use other examples to spread fear. That's probably the element I feel great sympathy for the left in the US, namely that they're not even engaged or taken up for consideration. That of course causes frustration and resentment, especially in a functional two party system - where you're forced to vote on one party when you're not centrist.
TheShadowLord
Member
I find it strange that the far Right roots for Peterson, he is not really on their side and kind of call them out on it as much as with the far left
jonnyp
Member
Anecdotal? What's anecdotal about his views on free speech? Fervent, cultish base? Sorry, but I find that to be absolute nonsense.
Bryank75
Banned
I wouldn't really say it's that strange, it's very 'enemy of my enemy'.
The radical left also aligns itself with Linda Sarsour and she has called for sharia law and jihad... her values are totally contradictory to what the more moderate and thoughtful left were traditionally about and why so many are finding it hard to call themselves left-wing or whatever.
Most rational people have moved to the centre I believe.
This is my thinking exactly. Its actually unnerving seeing this as well as it seems to be illogical. I have a tendency to center my views around fact, and science(I live with a biologist)and to see people argue with emotion, (which can be a useful tool at times) and wield it with ignorance it can lead to fractures in thinking between all sides.
Its utterly bizarre to watch.
ickythingz
Banned
I am not familiar with either of the people in this discussion. The woman really did a good job of emphasizing how a lot of the left believes they have an upper hand in every sociological debate. A belief that is generally shattered with a dose of hard reality is injected into the conversation. You can see it in her eyes that deep down, in her sub conscious, she knows everything this man is saying is true, but because of her position in society she can never rise to the challenge of facing these very real issues and attempting to solve them. People like her may simply be too scared of what it would take to fix the problems and would rather hide in the liberal masses as if taking an opiate.
A lot of people in today's society shy away from many aspects of reality and this woman is a prime example of this mindset.
A lot of people in today's society shy away from many aspects of reality and this woman is a prime example of this mindset.
DKrypt
Neo Member
That was an interesting interview, she annoyed the hell out of me constantly putting words into his mouth, and couldn't seem to accept the fact men and women are reasonably different and their choices reflect that. Overall pretty funny, especially his response 'I'm a clinical Psychologist.' had me loling.
Relativ9
Member
While most of this is true, and I'd definitely agree that our left leans far more authoritarian than libertarian...this should be qualified. In Norway; even some of our most right-wing parties would fall on the left side of the aisle when compared to US politics, center/slightly right of center at worst. We practically have no comparative social conservatives (even the Christian party are far too open to immigration to qualify here). And our economical libertarians ("the purple"/ the libertarians) is a nothing party which only got 6000 votes last election, everyone else believes in some level of socialism. We can't really be compared to US politics using the same terms.
Last edited:
Lupingosei
Banned
The idea of cultural Marxism was already in use long before people like Peterson and changed its meaning quite a few times. There was a movement already existing that the wanted to share Marxist ideals through culture. It is similar what some feminist want, when the want more representation in male dominated fields of fandom, even if 90% of consumers still are male. They think they can change society by means of culture. It is inserting political or social values of an ideology into popular culture. Something which was very often used in places like East Germany or the Soviet Union and its satellite states. Culture was reshaped, even for example fairy tales became more egalitarian. The same thing happened during the 60's movement in the western world and people wanted to educate people into something new. The backlash against that brought us people like Reagan or Thatcher. And btw there was Christian culture. Also Christianity inserted its own believe into culture to “educate” people. Culture was always a mean to transport ideology.
It was never that easy and never that black & white as you may want people make to believe. It was also not on the other side, way too many people still somehow showed sympathy for the Nazis. The western left always had the problem to distance themselves from Stalin, Mao or other authoritarian leftists, because the world revolution still was the goal they all worked for. Also as modern leftists have the problem, they both have the same foundation, so attacking them is also weakening their own position. So way too often this was brushed away. And it became leftist chic in the 60’s to walk around with Mao’s red book even while knowing about the culture revolution in China. And very often they attacked moderate leftist as traitors when they argued against Mao or Stalin. It was often justified as self-defense against the American colonialism. The whole thing was pretty terrible sometimes and maybe Monty Python did one of the most perfect caricatures of it, when the Judean Liberation front talked about the Romans in Life of Brian. And unfortunately both side have this extreme tendency to use the state to legitimate their ideology. This is also why I am not so afraid of Trump. He and his people only weaken the state, the authoritarian right like the Nazis would never do that.
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
Talk for your Europe, here. This circle view is very lacking and it only works in terms of crimes by aligning governements. The problem is that people are grouped in left / right, whereas - and this distinction was tought in school here in Germany as well - you at the very least need to differentiate between economical policies and social policies. And not all combinations of positions have a viable political party behind them.
E.g. I am pretty far left in economical issues (which is where I think left / right has been mostly used in Europe, or at least Germany in the past), but very liberal in social issues, with the general rule of thumb being: Anyone may do just as he likes, as long as he not actively damages others. (Socially) Authoritarian people like to set stricter rules and to form a more structured society that follows their individual views.
Now the thing is that authoritarians still need to be differentiated, and I propose the distinction between
- the philosophy of group diversity, where the ultimate goal is to have an environment where every social group one may define should be taken care of with a behavioural rule set that ensures they feel most comfortable (extreme form not yet fully established in any distinct political group, but observable in the more extreme social justice movements)
- the philosophy of group majority, where the ultimate goal is to create an environment, where one majority group (which may not necessarily, but usually is, the numerical majority of the respective region) feels most protected, respected and powerful (extreme form being racism / nazism).
Grinchy
Banned
It's almost like both of the far sides are made up of lunatics.
MisterR
Member
Bunch of nonsense. Most of the left ideology is based on logic. If anything right wing ideology is based on emotion. They use fear, xenophobia, divisiveness to drive their movement. One interviewer not paying attention to her subject doesn't render an ideology to be illogical. I do think it's a hoot to see right wingers try to argue no logic in leftist ideology, when they are largely science deniers.
MisterR
Member
Surely you have enough sense to understand how these situations are different? The historical context?
Centrism is mostly based on logic. You go too far on either side of the political spectrum and you begin entering the realm of the ideological emotion overriding sound logic.
The problem is, now there are very few people who sit near the center. We are in a time of hyper partisanship.
Last edited:
Jon Neu
Banned
1) Are you comparing far right wing websites with actual national mainstream media? It's undeniable that society is more tolerant to racism against whites than blacks or other minority group.
Bolivar687
Banned
AnotherDayAnotherDollar
Banned
Funny that both sides say the same thing about each other.
Go to a democrat and he/she will say, "Left ideology is based on logic, right ideology is based on emotion!"
Go to a republican and he/she will say, "Right ideology is based on logic, left ideology is based on emotion!"
Both sides ignore science when it's convenient for them. It's pretty easy to see it if you step back and look at it from the outside.
The best thing to do if you are active on american politics is to register NPA and vote on issues instead of cheerleading a party like it's your damn football team.
Cybrwzrd
Banned
The far left denies science just as much as the far right will when science isn't ideologically convenient. The dismissal of evolutionary biology and psychology are great examples of the cognitive dissonance the left will display when given contradictory science to their beliefs. How about the fear of GMOs or anti-vaxxers?
Agreed. The worst thing any person can do is go in the booth and "pull the lever" on a party. In my view its worse then not voting at all. I vote the person and how they align with my beliefs, and if they have integrity.(I have a hell of a lot more respect for someone who stands by what they say even if I disagree with their position)not the party. I personally am all over the place when I vote.
With that said, I know I'm probably in the minority as I really dig into the people running for various positions be it federal, state, or local level.
It really doesn't take that much time these days as most candidates platform and personal details are all over the web. Most people can't even be bothered to vote though amd I'm sure there are portions of those that do just "pull the lever".
Its depressing.
GotrekNoFelix
Neo Member
You don't have to be right wing to acknowledge that the modern left is very much emotionally driven to an absurd degree. You just have to maintain a degree of integrity and self awareness to examine those around you as you would those you are opposed to.
That's not a jab, it's very easy to get carried away and echo-chambers are extremely comfortable places to be in but as with most things that make you feel good it's really quite unhealthy.
As to this idea that right wingers argue with no logic? That's frankly absurd. There's truth to any prominent idea that refuses to die or else they wouldn't spread. Even something so absurd as Alex Jones' "gay frog" rant has some truth to it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...sgender-contraceptive-pill-chemicals-flushed/
That's not to say that all ideas and "facts" put forward by the right have merit to them but if something so ludicrous and commonly dismissed out of hand as "muh gay frogs" has some truth to it then it speaks to that you shouldn't be immediately dismissing something said because you've come to think of the person saying it as your enemy.
Last edited:
Vicetrailia
Member
This isn't true either. Political ideology undermines logic, and people generally judge arguments as more logically sound when they personally support the argument’s conclusion. No one is immune from that. A lot of times we already operate at the center anyway, as the far wing ideas are too extreme for us to take seriously.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
- Locked