|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 20 2017 00:42 Kickboxer wrote:
Cool. I gave you guys some really good advice. Feel free to follow it or not, I don't care.
Given the apparent profundity of your intellects, I'm sure digesting 50 lectures or so and actually thinking about the content instead of spouting reactive propaganda would be an easy task.
Unless you're too busy smashing things in the name of love and progress.
I’m perfectly comfortable knowing that there are vast amounts of information I do not have, the books I have not read and the lectures I have not seen. That does not preclude any of us from holding an opinion based on whatever readings we have encountered. And frankly, this style of “watch this 10 hour video and get back to me” is the laziest form of argument you could put forth. It is a naked attempt to argue from using unearned authority.
|
On July 20 2017 00:42 Kickboxer wrote:
Cool. I gave you guys some really good advice. Feel free to follow it or not, I don't care.
Given the apparent profundity of your intellects, I'm sure digesting 50 lectures or so and actually thinking about the content instead of spouting reactive propaganda would be an easy task.
Unless you're too busy smashing things in the name of love and progress.
The problem here is the difference in effort necessary to tell someone to watch 10 hours of lectures, and to actually watch them. It takes 30 seconds to post "Hey, watch these 10 hours of stuff", while it takes 10 hours to watch them. That is why people dislike the "watch this video" style of argument. If you can't be bothered to make the argument, i can't be bothered to care about it.
And if i wanted to watch 10 hours of lectures, there are a lot of subjects that i would be interested in already, but i don't have the time and the mental capacity to do so.
|
On July 20 2017 00:48 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 00:38 farvacola wrote:
Fun, tangentially related fact: if a police officer tells you to stop calling him "dude" enough times during a stop and you keep doing it, he can arrest you for harassing an officer. Do you see that as problematic in any meaningful way?
Nah, it was on an episode of Cops.
|
On July 20 2017 00:20 Kickboxer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2017 23:43 IgnE wrote:
I have listened to Peterson, actually. I have two surprises for you. 1) he's not that smart and 2) he only pretends to have read Derrida No you haven't. At best, you took a cursory glance that triggered your cognitive dissonance and put him in a sealed brain compartment labeled "alt-right" or something comparably inane. The mere notion these two concepts are somehow even related is a testament to the insanity of the regressive left. The man is a fucking saint and most likely the smartest person alive - providing you're looking for instruments that will allow you to better yourself and society, that is. On the other hand, if you want to shout obscenities at people, retreat into "safe spaces" to "smash patriarchy" while also "destroying capitalism", keep reading Derrida. I'm sure it comes super handy in your day-to-day interactions.
lol "most likely smartest person alive"
come on man you aren't even trying anymore. you are shadow boxing your own demons. do you want me to repost Kant's idea of Enlightenment for you again? if you want to talk about Jung let's talk about Jung
|
There is zero connection between courtesy (deciding to do something out of your own volition), and compelled speech (being required, by law, to say certain things in certain situations).
If a friend of mine wants me to call him the USS Enterprise, or a troubled stranger asks to be called a zebra I'll gladly comply. I try to be an empathetic person.
The state dictating what you ought to say (=speech policing), on the other hand, is an ur-Stalinist concept. It's not even the same as telling people what they aren't allowed to say, which is already a tricky subject in itself.
Saying it's not a problem on liberal campuses is like saying permafrost is not a problem in Greenland. Liberal campuses are precisely the political body that is pushing for these agendas.
|
On July 20 2017 00:56 Kickboxer wrote:
There is zero connection between courtesy (deciding to do something out of your own volition), and compelled speech (being required, by law, to say certain things in certain situations).
If a friend of mine wants me to call him the USS Enterprise, or a troubled stranger asks to be called a zebra I'll gladly comply. I try to be an empathetic person.
The state dictating what you ought to say (=speech policing), on the other hand, is an ur-Stalinist concept. It's not even the same as telling people what they aren't allowed to say, which is already a tricky subject in itself.
Saying it's not a problem on liberal campuses is like saying permafrost is not a problem in Greenland. Liberal campuses are precisely the political body that is pushing for these agendas.
Are we talking about the state, or about liberal campuses? I'm confused. What does one have to do with the other? There are enough Christian conservative colleges which enforce conservative values on campus so why do you focus on liberal campuses?
|
Having graduated from an extremely liberal campus, the only consequences you would face at my school for not respecting pronouns are the social consequences of people considering you a doucher.
What laws are there that FORCE people to use people's preferred pronouns? Have I missed something?
|
Usually when people post 10 hour long videos as arguments no one in this thread has heard of them. So... We're making progress?
I'm willing to take igne's word that he's seen them and was not impressed. While most people only pretend to have read Derrida, it is usually pretty obvious if you have read him and disagree.
Really, I would think more objections from conservatives would be launched against Foucault for the history of sex, but I guess not.
|
On July 20 2017 00:53 IgnE wrote:
do you want me to repost Kant's idea of Enlightenment for you again? if you want to talk about Jung let's talk about Jung
Fascinating that you should mention Jung, as he happens to be precisely the thinker most widely discussed, in a very favorable and respectful light, by Dr. Peterson himself. In addition to Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky and Solzhenitsyn.
Seeing as he used to be a Harvard professor of psychology I'd wager he's read a tiny little bit of Jung. Probably not as much as your typical college sophomore, tho.
|
For someone so opposed to identity politics, your arguments sure turn on identity a whole lot.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 19 2017 23:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2017 23:36 LegalLord wrote:
Hell, in a few of those I was forced to vote Republican simply because the Democrats put forward people so unqualified that voting for them even just to spite the Republicans would have been irresponsible of me. Name the races, the candidates and why you came to those conclusions. Clearly you feel very strongly.
Not naming the candidates but they were for lower level administrative positions like school boards and the like. Republicans weren't great but they had people who knew how to do their jobs. Democrats wanted to win the seats with people who were clearly unqualified for the role in question.
Not really personal, but I'm not voting for a moron just because of party lines.
|
On July 20 2017 01:05 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2017 23:38 KwarK wrote:On July 19 2017 23:36 LegalLord wrote:
Hell, in a few of those I was forced to vote Republican simply because the Democrats put forward people so unqualified that voting for them even just to spite the Republicans would have been irresponsible of me. Name the races, the candidates and why you came to those conclusions. Clearly you feel very strongly. Not naming the candidates but they were for lower level administrative positions like school boards and the like. Republicans weren't great but they had people who knew how to do their jobs. Democrats wanted to win the seats with people who were clearly unqualified for the role in question. Not really personal, but I'm not voting for a moron just because of party lines.
ah, low level town elections, pickings are often very thin, and there's often idiots running from all sides.
I woulnd't read too much into that (or extrapolate from it to higher office), just town governments often being trash and using unqualified people.
|
Localities lack expertise generally regardless of political inclination. It's a foundational American problem and one that often goes unaddressed because of how much "local rule" is worshipped here.
|
California legislators have voted to extend a centerpiece program to cut greenhouse gas emissions, burnishing the state’s reputation as a bulwark against Donald Trump’s demolition of climate change measures.
In a rare show of bipartisan agreement on climate change, eight Republicans joined with Democrats in California’s two legislative houses to extend the cap-and-trade emissions system a further 10 years until 2030.
The emissions-lowering scheme, the second-largest of its kind in the world, aims to help the state reach its target of cutting planet-warming gases 40% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels.
“Tonight, California stood tall and once again, boldly confronted the existential threat of our time,” said Jerry Brown, California’s governor. “Republicans and Democrats set aside their differences, came together and took courageous action. That’s what good government looks like.”
The cap-and-trade program, established in 2006 under then governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, sets a limit on emissions and requires polluters to either reduce their output or purchase permits from those who have. As the limit steadily becomes stricter, it nudges businesses to take the more financially attractive option of cutting their pollution.
California, the sixth-largest economy in the world, is in stark opposition to Trump’s administration. The president has said he will withdraw the US from the Paris climate agreement and has set about dismantling federal policies that lower emissions.
Brown has positioned himself as a countervailing force to Trump, visiting China to talk to its leaders about climate change and promising to build and launch weather-monitoring satellites should federal budget cuts endanger programs handled by Nasa and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOOA).
“A lot of you people are going to be alive, and you’re going to be alive in a horrible situation,” Brown told Californian lawmakers at a committee hearing shortly before the vote. “This isn’t for me, I’m going to be dead. This is for you, and it’s real.”
Many Californian Republicans remain opposed to the cap-and-trade system, warning it will pose a “crushing” blow to small businesses. But the bill ended up gaining an unusual level of Republican support, with the extension also supported by key conservative constituencies, including the California Chamber of Commerce and associations representing manufacturers and agriculture interests.
Concessions to get some Republican support, such as the limiting of separate regulations on refineries, risked alienating more liberal Democrats. Some environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, attacked the bill for allowing polluters to continue emitting greenhouse gases if they offset them with green projects, including those outside California.
But other climate activists declared themselves pleased with the outcome, pointing out that it showed that action to reduce emissions is bipartisan and popular.
“California is once again showing Washington DC and the rest of the world that fighting climate and air pollution is the right thing for our health, economy and future,” said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund.
California’s pioneering attitude to climate change action was underlined by separate court action launched on Monday, aimed at holding fossil fuel companies accountable for global warming.
Marin and San Mateo counties, along with the City of Imperial Beach, filed a lawsuit in the California superior court to complain that 37 oil, gas and coal companies knew burning their products would increase carbon pollution and cause sea levels rise.
“Defendants have known for nearly 50 years that greenhouse gas pollution from their fossil fuel products has a significant impact on the Earth’s climate and sea levels,” the complaint states.
The municipalities are claiming damages from the fossil fuel firms, echoing a strategy used against the tobacco industry in the 1990s that resulted in multibillion dollar payouts.
The companies targeted in the lawsuit include Shell, Exxon Mobile, Chevron and BP. According to the municipalities, these businesses have caused around 20% of all industrial carbon dioxide and methane pollution since the 1960s.
Source
|
I'm just representing an alternative viewpoint. I also pointed out an easy and exhausting way to get in touch with what I'm talking about so I don't have to write a hundred-page essay, given my limited knowledge and capacity for expression, but since being a "leftist" and a "progressive" is likely part of the core identity of 90% of this forum (which should strike you as very odd in itself), I find my point rather difficult to get across.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 20 2017 01:07 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 01:05 LegalLord wrote:On July 19 2017 23:38 KwarK wrote:On July 19 2017 23:36 LegalLord wrote:
Hell, in a few of those I was forced to vote Republican simply because the Democrats put forward people so unqualified that voting for them even just to spite the Republicans would have been irresponsible of me. Name the races, the candidates and why you came to those conclusions. Clearly you feel very strongly. Not naming the candidates but they were for lower level administrative positions like school boards and the like. Republicans weren't great but they had people who knew how to do their jobs. Democrats wanted to win the seats with people who were clearly unqualified for the role in question. Not really personal, but I'm not voting for a moron just because of party lines. ah, low level town elections, pickings are often very thin, and there's often idiots running from all sides. I woulnd't read too much into that (or extrapolate from it to higher office), just town governments often being trash and using unqualified people.
Their Congress picks were not great either - just not bad enough to vote against them. But I could understand why they got clobbered.
Say what you will about Republicans, but in my district they didn't throw out wholly unqualified people all across the map. Merely competently shitty.
|
On July 20 2017 01:11 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 01:07 zlefin wrote:On July 20 2017 01:05 LegalLord wrote:On July 19 2017 23:38 KwarK wrote:On July 19 2017 23:36 LegalLord wrote:
Hell, in a few of those I was forced to vote Republican simply because the Democrats put forward people so unqualified that voting for them even just to spite the Republicans would have been irresponsible of me. Name the races, the candidates and why you came to those conclusions. Clearly you feel very strongly. Not naming the candidates but they were for lower level administrative positions like school boards and the like. Republicans weren't great but they had people who knew how to do their jobs. Democrats wanted to win the seats with people who were clearly unqualified for the role in question. Not really personal, but I'm not voting for a moron just because of party lines. ah, low level town elections, pickings are often very thin, and there's often idiots running from all sides. I woulnd't read too much into that (or extrapolate from it to higher office), just town governments often being trash and using unqualified people. Their Congress picks were not great either - just not bad enough to vote against them. But I could understand why they got clobbered. Say what you will about Republicans, but in my district they didn't throw out wholly unqualified people all across the map. Merely competently shitty.
is it a district that's republican heavy? (i.e. 60-40 or 70-30)? that often causes such things.
local and state level parties vary quite a bit from each other, so it's quite possible that the lower level republicans aim for competence more in your area.
my main disputes are with the federal level republican party (and a few random idiots at the state level who push really bad laws); I don't know enough about the various state parties in general to know how they can compare.
|
Well, if we're going to talk about our favorite psychiatrists and political thinkers of the last 100+ years, I'm going to throw my hat in the ring for Benjamin Tucker, Albert Jay Nock, Garret Garrett, Isabel Paterson, Walter Block, and the best -- Jeffrey Tucker. You're all obviously nincompoops if you don't believe these are the greatest scholars and thinkers of the last 100 years (part sarcasm obviously).
Kickboxer sounds like the guy everyone knows who found out about a guy who provides a good defense for their own beliefs and is incessant about talking about it all the time. Then on the other hand you have the dry run of the mill post-modern / relativistic socialish(m) pretentious drivel with the likes of Foucault and Derrida (two philosophers I'd argue as having done some of the most damage to their field of study and to society).
Don't let me get in-between with my libertarian anarchist perspective. :p (because we know the choice is always binary - conservative/liberal drek)
|
On July 20 2017 01:10 Kickboxer wrote:
I'm just representing an alternative viewpoint. I also pointed out an easy and exhausting way to get in touch with what I'm talking about so I don't have to write a hundred-page essay, given my limited knowledge and capacity for expression, but since being a "leftist" and a "progressive" is likely part of the core identity of 90% of this forum (which should strike you as very odd in itself), I find my point rather difficult to get across.
Trump vs Clinton polls made in this thread before the election had Clinton winning with "only" 60-65% of the votes. Obviously it's not a reliable source but I think it's closer to reality than your 90/10 split.
|
On July 20 2017 00:12 KwarK wrote:
Fighting against pronouns seems like the most insane hill to die on there is to be honest. Even if you think transgender people are delusional, society constantly telling them that an identity that feels true to them doesn't exist tends to make them kill themselves. The courtesy being requested by transgender people ranks about the same as holding a door open for a person following you in terms of the imposition upon my life. It's far less intrusive than ramps being added to public buildings for the wheelchair folk. This strange idea that if we choose to treat each other with respect in this one case then the electricity will run out is absolutely baffling.
That and the whole narccissism of kickboxer's argument. It comes down to
1) Lots of other people see value in X
2) I don't see any value in X
3) Therefore lots of other people are dumb
The idea that it might be him who doesn't get it appears not to have crossed his mind.
It gets a lot less "courtesy" and more "full weight of law enforced by the justice system" pretty much at square one. "Choose to treat?" More like force to treat; which isn't the same by the way. I'll listen to your coming legislative pushes to punish citizens for not holding the door open, and whether that level should be 5ft or 10 or 20. I'm fairly sure western civ survives only if free speech is the hill we die on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
