EPTAka the Sam Harris model.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 84
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12179 Posts
Aka the Sam Harris model. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
back to the topics: perhaps some independent sources assessments of where they are would be helpful for determining which of those possibilities it is. if it's one of the dirtiest smear pieces you've ever read, i'd have to question how widely you read (and/or what measure of dirtiness you're using), as there are some very fringe websites out there which post some very crazy stuff; and it seems unlikely to get to such an extreme on a mainstream publication like the guardian. also, was it in the editorial section, and if so under which writer(s)? how did you decide that where you've shifted to now is the moderate right? (also moderate right relative to what location, as left/right standards vary a lot throughout the world) | ||
|
Kickboxer
Slovenia1308 Posts
I don't even care about the postmodernist bashing (though I agree with it) or the C-16 controversy (though i agree with that, too). All the political and partisan stuff is magnified by 90% to make it seem that's what JP is about, and it's not. It's the unimportant fluff on the content that's worth taking a look at, no matter your position on the political spectrum. This is what I meant by "people having no idea what they are talking about". P.s. thanks for proving all my points in a concise post Nyxisto. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9650 Posts
On April 08 2018 04:24 Kickboxer wrote: There is nothing vague about "maps of meaning" or "personality and its transformations". Which, incidentally, cover most of the truly interesting things he's talking about. It's a completely fresh take on issues of extreme relevance in the modern zeitgeist, which is also the reason for his popularity, in case you were wondering. I don't even care about the postmodernist bashing (though I agree with it) or the C-16 controversy (though i agree with that, too). All the political and partisan stuff is magnified by 90% to make it seem that's what JP is about, and it's not. It's the unimportant fluff on the content that's worth taking a look at, no matter your position on the political spectrum. This is what I meant by "people having no idea what they are talking about". P.s. thanks for proving all my points in a concise post Nyxisto. There are plenty of criticisms of Peterson's academic work too though. Jungian psychology, which influenced Maps of Meaning especially, is pretty outdated and horribly imprecise as an area of study. Its interesting in its mix of subjects - psychology, philosophy, mythology, anthropology etc., but it isn't particularly scientific, nor does it have much application outside of being a good workout in analytical skills. i wouldn't say his approach is 'fresh' particularly. Its just a more traditional, and yet individualistic approach to what many scholars were doing in the 1930s-70s. Having said all that, I did enjoy watching all of the Maps of Meaning lectures and I would say I got something useful out of it. On April 08 2018 04:36 iamthedave wrote: it hardly warrants presenting Peterson like some unappreciated genius that dem lefties just can't appreciate. Yeah I mean of course many lefties can't appreciate him. He spends half his time touring the world telling everyone how evil and dangerous they are. I can't say I agree with his politics too much, but I find him interesting and I find his popularity more interesting still. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On April 08 2018 04:24 Kickboxer wrote: There is nothing vague about "maps of meaning" or "personality and its transformations". Which, incidentally, cover most of the truly interesting things he's talking about. It's a completely fresh take on issues of extreme relevance in the modern zeitgeist, which is also the reason for his popularity, in case you were wondering. I don't even care about the postmodernist bashing (though I agree with it) or the C-16 controversy (though i agree with that, too). All the political and partisan stuff is magnified by 90% to make it seem that's what JP is about, and it's not. It's the unimportant fluff on the content that's worth taking a look at, no matter your position on the political spectrum. This is what I meant by "people having no idea what they are talking about". P.s. thanks for proving all my points in a concise post Nyxisto. While I agree with your central point, you can't deny that Peterson is best known for his tiff with transgender people, and a lot on the right like him for this reason alone. He is a flashpoint for nuts people on the left and them being pretty firmly wrong, though. As for him being 'fresh'... not so much. He's a clever man and he's very erudite, but his ideas have come around before. They're 'fresh' only because they fell out of the modern dialectic, which makes them worth bringing up again, but it hardly warrants presenting Peterson like some unappreciated genius that dem lefties just can't appreciate. As for the Guardian, they do good journalism but are left leaning. They've literally always been that. Why you think they're worse now I cannot fathom, as the Guardian is the UK leftie rag and they haven't changed much in decades. As for their views on Peterson, maybe this article will be more to your liking: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/12/not-all-he-says-is-defensible-but-jordan-peterson-deserves-to-be-taken-seriously On April 08 2018 04:11 Kickboxer wrote: To me, what I perceive as blatant over-moderation (in the context of my other posts which I've tried to keep constructive as I've been here for a decade or so) on a site I've always perceived as well-balanced is sheer proof of the issues we're talking about. It feels like the Comrades are about to ship me off to wrongthink land any time now. Zlefin I can't say if I've became aware of the Guardian issue due to my own persisting cognitive slide from the moderate left to (what I guess is now seen as) the moderate right, or if it's changes in their writing. I was severely disappointed by several articles in a row, and then the hit piece they did on Peterson was the final nail in this regard for me since I'm pretty sure I know the topic very well. It was, and I'm not kidding, one of the dirtiest smear pieces I've ever read. The way you opened up that post was very clearly spoiling for a fight, or could be interpreted as such without any need to add context or make assumptions. The fact that the new moderation for this thread has prevented it from descending into pissing matches between posters even once in 80+ pages so far is an indication that the moderation is working wonders. So yeah. I'm not surprised you got a warning for it. It was unnecessary and likely to rub people up the wrong way. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On April 08 2018 04:36 iamthedave wrote: While I agree with your central point, you can't deny that Peterson is best known for his tiff with transgender people, and a lot on the right like him for this reason alone. He is a flashpoint for nuts people on the left and them being pretty firmly wrong, though. As for him being 'fresh'... not so much. He's a clever man and he's very erudite, but his ideas have come around before. They're 'fresh' only because they fell out of the modern dialectic, which makes them worth bringing up again, but it hardly warrants presenting Peterson like some unappreciated genius that dem lefties just can't appreciate. As for the Guardian, they do good journalism but are left leaning. They've literally always been that. Why you think they're worse now I cannot fathom, as the Guardian is the UK leftie rag and they haven't changed much in decades. if they haven't changed much, and kickboxer thinks they're worse now, the likeliest conclusion is that kickboxer changed (which he has stated). and as he is farther away from them ideologically, he now rates them as worse (which is a very common effect via a variety of mechanisms, and well documented iirc) | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9650 Posts
On April 08 2018 04:40 Plansix wrote: I want to know who decided the postmodern was now a negative term to be thrown around. The term has been around for over 100 years, but now its some terrible bad thing that the left uses. Well Peterson is a traditionalist and is garnering a following of people who are similarly traditional in their mindset, so of course post-modernism is evil to them, the whole idea of it is to break down tradition. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9118 Posts
On April 08 2018 04:40 Dangermousecatdog wrote: People read The Guardian outside of UK? From Slovenia to USA! Wow, I didn't think it was this well regarded. It's regarded as a quality broadsheet in the UK, and if it has international appeal, I can only presume that its quality has transfered to its international versions. I don't know how much it has to do with quality, people read the Daily Mail outside of the UK too, probably more so than the Guardian. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On April 08 2018 04:40 zlefin wrote: if they haven't changed much, and kickboxer thinks they're worse now, the likeliest conclusion is that kickboxer changed (which he has stated). and as he is farther away from them ideologically, he now rates them as worse (which is a very common effect via a variety of mechanisms, and well documented iirc) Yes, most likely. But I felt it necessary to set the record straight. Likewise, for record straightening, the Guardian is generally regarded as one of our better papers in terms of overall journalism quality. Probably comparable to the Washington Post? | ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32740 Posts
| ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
Take your average Trumpkin Hannity Watcher (THW). It is THW's truth that Obama and the deep state are conspiring against Dear Leader. Dear Leader is heroic and faultless due to his commitments to the welfare of THW, and all of his opponents are Hippocrates who have all in some way or another done worse than all the terrible things Dear Leader has done. Now libs might bring up facts that contradict this heroic myth narrative around Dear Leader, but those facts won't change the truth of Dear Leader's heroism. In this way, JP truly is the philosopher of our times. A JP drone won't let liberal facts get in the way of their own heroic truth. Who cares that JP never cites even a single instance of a post modernist in the flesh. JP can rage against them because they go against his traditionalist myths and that is enough truth for the drones. JP doesn't need to actually cite real biblical scholars to make up stuff about Cain and Abel, that his spinning fits the traditionalist prejudices of the drones is enough to make JP's ramblings truth. Indictments, plea deals, and jail time is raining down on Dear Leader's campaign team, but those are liberal facts. The TRUTH is that Clinton was the real Russia conspirator, haven't you heard about Uranium One? + Show Spoiler + EDIT: you really gotta listen to JP talk when some asks him for the basis of his musings. SH #62 SH #67 User was warned for this post | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On April 08 2018 04:40 Plansix wrote: I want to know who decided the postmodern was now a negative term to be thrown around. The term has been around for over 100 years, but now its some terrible bad thing that the left uses. Most people have no idea what Post Modernism is or care about what context it is talked about in. I mean it was mainly a perspective that academics used to critique their own disciplines for a lot of people. | ||
|
Kickboxer
Slovenia1308 Posts
The fundamental reason is (this is also precisely how I feel about Ben Shapiro) that I can guess the conclusion before starting the first paragraph. It will always be pro this, anti that, with no divergence and no surprising exception, and since matters that interest me are incredibly complex and most have - as I've noticed - very solid counter-arguments on both sides if you're willing to look for them in the "enemy camp", it's just not the type of media I trust consuming. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On April 08 2018 04:46 Dan HH wrote: I don't know how much it has to do with quality, people read the Daily Mail outside of the UK too, probably more so than the Guardian. Well, I read the Daily Mail too, and it is poorly regarded, and I too can only assume that this reputation and its quality of journalism has transferred abroad. On April 08 2018 05:04 Kickboxer wrote: Should be noted I'm talking about the online version. Or, more specifically, the online articles that come to my attention and I actually go read, which is roughly one per month let's say. The last five or six in a row, which dealt with immigration, the #meToo sex scandals, some type of capitalism critique and the JP hit piece if I remember correctly, shaped my current opinion. The fundamental reason is (this is also precisely how I feel about Ben Shapiro) that I can guess the conclusion before starting the first paragraph. It will always be pro this, anti that, with no divergence and no surprising exception, and since matters that interest me are incredibly complex and most have - as I've noticed - very solid counter-arguments on both sides if you're willing to look for them in the "enemy camp", it's just not the type of media I trust consuming. Then I can only recommend that that you read the paper version if you can, as an alternative source. Its investigative journalism and analysis is excellent. I can only presume that if it isn't behind a paywall, and by all accounts it appears that it is free online, then it aims to profit by advertising and all that which entails when online. So I haven't much clue about its online quality I am afraid. I literally haven't the foggiest clue what this "#meToo sex scandals, some type of capitalism critique and the JP hit piece" business is. Probably social media related I imagine. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On April 08 2018 05:04 Kickboxer wrote: Should be noted I'm talking about the online version. Or, more specifically, the online articles that come to my attention and I actually go read, which is roughly one per month let's say. The last five or six in a row, which dealt with immigration, the #meToo sex scandals, some type of capitalism critique and the JP hit piece if I remember correctly, shaped my current opinion. The fundamental reason is (this is also precisely how I feel about Ben Shapiro) that I can guess the conclusion before starting the first paragraph. It will always be pro this, anti that, with no divergence and no surprising exception, and since matters that interest me are incredibly complex and most have - as I've noticed - very solid counter-arguments on both sides if you're willing to look for them in the "enemy camp", it's just not the type of media I trust consuming. are those articles in the oped section or the journalism section? at any rate, it sounds like you're making an overly vigorous conclusion based on a very small and highly curated sample size. "comes to your attention" introduces many sources of possible bias; and there's a whole apparatus that exists to magnify any errors on the "other" side because it's profitable to do so. I'm sure a great many publications could look bad if you look at only one article a month out of thousands and those ones are chosen specifically because they're likely to enrage you. | ||
|
Kickboxer
Slovenia1308 Posts
On April 08 2018 04:22 zlefin wrote: if it's one of the dirtiest smear pieces you've ever read, i'd have to question how widely you read (and/or what measure of dirtiness you're using), as there are some very fringe websites out there which post some very crazy stuff; and it seems unlikely to get to such an extreme on a mainstream publication like the guardian. also, was it in the editorial section, and if so under which writer(s)? how did you decide that where you've shifted to now is the moderate right? (also moderate right relative to what location, as left/right standards vary a lot throughout the world) by "dirty" I mean deceptively manipulative and not ridiculous or outright false like an Alex Jones. I mean dirty in the machiavelian sense, i.e. intellectually dishonest due to a political agenda. Insincere with some calculating brain behind it. The fact it was published under what fronts as a highly legitimate banner was part of my resentment. The author you can look up. The article too, and then compare it to the article I posted and make your own conclusions. There are far more than two sides to this particular debate, and it goes far beyond Peterson as a martyr or guru or whatever I see myself on the right because I'm more triggered by leftist ideology and sentiment in 2018 than I am by rightist ones. My beliefs are all over the place, I'm anti-gun pro-abortion anti-government pro-wealth redistribution anti-immigration pro-drugs&prostitution anti-islam pro-labour anti-Church, consider myself to be religious (i.e. not an atheist) and am a fan of capitalism, so classify me as you will, but I've decided that free speech / thought, and freedom in general, especially in the intellectual and individual-economic sense, as well as the stability, functionality and sanity of society and daily life as a separate issue, are my core concerns at the moment. Both these push me further away from the mainstream progressive left on a yearly basis, and I'm not alone in this tendency. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On April 08 2018 04:40 Plansix wrote: I want to know who decided the postmodern was now a negative term to be thrown around. The term has been around for over 100 years, but now its some terrible bad thing that the left uses. citation needed for when "postmodern" was first used | ||
| ||
