EPTOn August 11 2017 21:18 JinDesu wrote:
0.75ml isn't a lot, I'm sure you'll be fine.
0.75ml isn't a lot, I'm sure you'll be fine.
It is if you multiply by 1000.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8368
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9036 Posts
It is if you multiply by 1000. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18855 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9036 Posts
I enjoy expensive whisky, so one can't really go crazy when spending $60-$80 a bottle (did that before) | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45331 Posts
| ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On August 11 2017 04:54 Falling wrote: I actually just wrote to the BusinessInsider on this issue... I doubt they'll read it. There is a fundamental difference between being popular with a certain group and it is not the same thing as belonging to the group. While he didn't shy away from their frog memes, I have yet to see him identify as an alt-righter and in fact, I believe he has expressed some concern over certain elements of the alt-right. (Certainly, he doesn't buy into the identitarian wing of the alt-right... though that might be the whole of it. And he is adamantly against the Jew-hating wing of the alt-right.) Also, in what sense is he a pseudo-intellectual? In his field of psychology, he is highly cited, which cannot be said for the field as a whole, 80% are not cited at all. (It's one thing to 'publish or perish', it's another thing if people actually read what you published- which is why number of citations has some bearing on his scholarship or lack therof.) l I understand that he's respected in psychology, but when it comes to the philosophical side of his content he essentially just makes stuff up. it is his conflation of fields like postmodernism with Marxism (they are distinctly opposed) as well as with various SJW movements that is intellectually dishonest and misleading. A lot of what he says on these topics are designed to make an audience that already dislikes SJWs feel like they have some sort of intellectual justification for it. Take, for example, his claim that 20% of professors in the USA are Marxist. This could well be true, but it shouldn't actually be alarming in any way as it's a completely legitimate academic position to hold. He links it in with the campus culture that denies speakers the chance to speak though, and suddenly we're in to the postmodernist conspiracy propagated through colleges and universities through the United States. He is a complete bullshit merchant. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On August 11 2017 20:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Jesus Christ... I guess this is why he thinks can save money on the fired diplomats. Twitter is all you need for internationally tense issues like nuclear war. I liked the times where NK was the only country having a retarded egomaniac leader threatening violence openly and we could laugh at them for their sillyness. | ||
|
Kickboxer
Slovenia1308 Posts
What a time to be alive  | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On August 11 2017 22:36 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I guess this is why he thinks can save money on the fired diplomats. Twitter is all you need for internationally tense issues like nuclear war. I liked the times where NK was the only country having a retarded egomaniac leader threatening violence openly and we could laugh at them for their sillyness. The threat isn't so much North Korea but China which will choose to defend North Korea. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On August 11 2017 22:39 Kickboxer wrote: A Harvard professor of psychology who supports nearly everything he says with direct links to repeated studies is now a pseudo-intellectual & bullshit merchant. What a time to be alive Everything he says on philosophy is bullshit essentially, and he either is intentionally misleading or doesn't understand what he's talking about. Feel free to show me where I'm wrong on that. I would like you, if you could, to explain in your own words what points he's making in this video, and why they're justified for example. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18855 Posts
On August 11 2017 22:39 Kickboxer wrote: A Harvard professor of psychology who supports nearly everything he says with direct links to repeated studies is now a pseudo-intellectual & bullshit merchant. What a time to be alive Given that you think yourself a part of some kind of war, you sure do a poor job of defending anything. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 11 2017 22:39 Kickboxer wrote: A Harvard professor of psychology who supports nearly everything he says with direct links to repeated studies is now a pseudo-intellectual & bullshit merchant. What a time to be alive I am personally very interested in his evidence that 20% of college professors in the US are Marxist. Also, it is really amusing to see people that complain about left leaning political correctness try to appeal to the authority of a Harvard degree. Harvard, the land of left leaning ivy league elites. But maybe left’s degrees are less valuable. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On August 11 2017 20:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Trump's statement on the expulsion of staff in Russia is very suspicious. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On August 11 2017 23:00 Plansix wrote: I am personally very interested in his evidence that 20% of college professors in the US are Marxist. Also, it is really amusing to see people that complain about left leaning political correctness try to appeal to the authority of a Harvard degree. Harvard, the land of left leaning ivy league elites. But maybe left’s degrees are less valuable. It's literally extremely insignificant as a claim even if it's true. As an academic position, Marxism is a legitimate one to hold. Peterson is disingenuously using this data to try and scare people who know Marxism = bad | ||
|
farvacola
United States18855 Posts
On August 11 2017 23:00 Plansix wrote: I am personally very interested in his evidence that 20% of college professors in the US are Marxist. Also, it is really amusing to see people that complain about left leaning political correctness try to appeal to the authority of a Harvard degree. Harvard, the land of left leaning ivy league elites. But maybe left’s degrees are less valuable. I hereby label the latter dynamic "Dershowitz Dysphoria." | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
Since we're sharing videos, maybe you can watch some of these if you want to be informed in greater extent about the problem that Peterson describes as it is being applied in society (education & universities in particular) as well as politics. It is rather well documented in social psychology and recognized by many respected psychologists. Peterson is far more crass than some other people in the way that he talks and doesn't sit well with me either, but there is definitely a truth to what he is saying. The bubble does not exist merely on the right. Jonathan Haidt is a much better speaker and far less aggressive. Here's an excerpt from his Wikipedia entry, so you know a little about his background. There's a reason why some of those 4 scientists that Plansix linked who were largely aligned with my own - apparently controversial - views on the infamous Google memo recommend a bunch of his books. And it's not because they're alt-righters: Jonathan David Haidt (born October 19, 1963) is an American social psychologist and Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University's Stern School of Business. His academic specialization is the psychology of morality and the moral emotions. Haidt is the author of two books: The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom (2006) and The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion (2012), which became a New York Times bestseller. He was named one of the "top global thinkers" by Foreign Policy magazine, and one of the "top world thinkers" by Prospect magazine. His four TED talks have been viewed more than 5 million times. In chapter 8 of The Righteous Mind, Haidt describes how he began to study political psychology in order to help the Democratic Party win more elections. But in chapter 12 of The Righteous Mind Haidt argues that each of the major political groups – conservatives, progressives, and libertarians—have valuable insights and that truth and good policy emerge from the contest of ideas. Since 2012 Haidt has referred to himself as a political centrist. Haidt is involved with several efforts to help bridge the political divide and reduce political polarization in the United States. In 2007 He founded the website CivilPolitics.org, a clearinghouse for research on political civility. He serves on the advisory boards of Represent.Us., a non-partisan anticorruption organization, the Acumen Fund, which invests in companies, leaders, and ideas that are changing the way the world tackles poverty and Better-Angels.org, a bipartisan group working to reduce political polarization. Three of his four TED talks are on the topic of understanding and reducing political divisions. His 2012 TED talk on “How common threats can make common ground” introduced a set of ideas on how to use moral psychology to foster collaboration among partisan opponents. This talk became the basis of a bipartisan working group of poverty researchers, which Haidt helped to convene, under the auspices of the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution. In 2015 the working group published a report titled: Opportunity, responsibility, and security: A consensus plan for reducing poverty and restoring the American dream. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 11 2017 21:18 JinDesu wrote: 0.75ml isn't a lot, I'm sure you'll be fine. I'm more impressed that it's a 0.750ml bottle. Like, that's smaller than an plain M&M candy. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On August 11 2017 23:14 a_flayer wrote: Kollin: Since we're sharing videos, maybe you can watch some of these if you want to be informed in greater extent about the problem that Peterson describes as it is being applied in society (education & universities in particular) as well as politics. It is rather well documented in social psychology and recognized by many respected psychologists. Peterson is far more crass than some other people in the way that he talks and doesn't sit well with me either, but there is definitely a truth to what he is saying. The bubble does not exist merely on the right. Jonathan Haidt is a much better speaker and far less aggressive. Here's an excerpt from his Wikipedia entry, so you know a little about his background. There's a reason why some of those 4 scientists that Plansix linked who were largely aligned with my own - apparently controversial - views on the infamous Google memo recommend a bunch of his books: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAE-gxKs6gM Do you mind summing them up for me? I can't watch them right at the minute. What I would say is my problem with Peterson mainly comes from his efforts to conflate various schools of thought with the 'SJW movement'. This is something which has given him a tremendous amount of popularity, and I think the reason for this is that a lot of people on the 'alt right' really want a towering, confident intellectual force they can look to in order to provide substance for their beliefs. In my opinion Peterson is extremely disingenuous in what he says regarding philosophy (or just ignorant), and he has misled and miseducated a lot of people. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On August 11 2017 22:49 farvacola wrote: Given that you think yourself a part of some kind of war, you sure do a poor job of defending anything. The concept of the culture war is not an absurd one. It is - or should be - common knowledge. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 11 2017 23:25 a_flayer wrote: The concept of the culture war is not an absurd one. It is - or should be - common knowledge. But he did a shit job defending it. That is the most blatant appeal to authority I’ve seen in a while and didn’t do a thing to address the 20% of US professors are Marxists claim. Which is something right out of McCarthyism, to be honest. | ||
|
Kickboxer
Slovenia1308 Posts
On August 11 2017 22:43 kollin wrote: I would like you, if you could, to explain in your own words what points he's making in this video, and why they're justified for example. The evolution of an ideology which has in the past century repeatedly harmed humanity (when manifest as a political doctrine in actual reality) – namely hardline marxism/communism/communitarianism and its utter failure to produce anything resembling a functioning human society – appears in 2017 popularly dressed up as cultural marxism, built on the foundation of the post-modern / deconstructivist reasoning that invalidates the objective value structures, traditions, achievements and salubrity of our current civilization in lieu of your next type of cutting-edge egalitarian utopia-to-come, to be enforced on the grounds, and by use of, the same mechanisms as all previous related ideologies (in very short: ordering people how they can and cannot behave, and what you are permitted and not permitted to say, own or do) that have already resulted in genocidal terror, a whopping zero success rate (Venezuela, anyone?), and merely loads of didactic evidence how actual fascism is born and propagated in the real world. Hint: the mechanisms revolve around groupthink, thought policing, the concept of "equity" among people with wildly varying intellectual and productive capabilities, and the justification of censorship and violence for political purposes. All of these are dangerously on the rise in the contemporary global left. Why? Well, it turns out a very vocal minority of ideologues (many of whom are clearly very angry and deeply troubled individuals) of the above cultural marxism have for decades been systematically corrupting the academia, as well as masses of impressionable young idiots, resulting in absolutely apocryphal academic programs such as gender studies (lol), feminist studies (that is some hard science, bro), race studies (why? there are no races...), the utter death of a proper English Literature program (which is especially lamentable!) with some respect for the classics instead of the idiot deconstructivist approach, and other purely theoretical ideology clusters that have no basis in scientific reality and are not rooted in repeatable scientific experiments. So, in defense of logic, science, the very nice system of capitalism we have working here, and plain old communication between human mammals that does not include "defining nazis" and then "punching nazis", which is mostly grounded in the absolute sanctity of true speech under any circumstance and however devastating its content might be to anyone's "feelings", it would be good to identify these movements and destroy them before they seep into legislation, and, during some odd historical moment no one apparently ever sees coming, result in 1930s Soviet Union. Any other questions? On a side note, I have no idea why I need to explain something that is extremely well explained by a far more eloquent person "in my own words", but hey, I went and did it anyway. Maybe now, out of courtesy, you and Farvacola can watch the below video start to finish, and think about the subject a little harder, especially with regard to who this person you are seeing here - basically forced to handle an enraged mob - appears in reality, as opposed to what you have been told about him. Perhaps that's the single most telling argument I can give you. Maybe you can describe exactly what goes on in this video in your own words? | ||
| ||
